Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Aorta (Stamford) 2021; 09(01): 021-029
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1724003
Original Research Article

National Outcomes of Elective Hybrid Arch Debranching with Endograft Exclusion versus Total Arch Replacement Procedures: Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database

Autoren

  • Tyler Wallen

    1   Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Timothy Carter

    2   Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Andreas Habertheuer

    1   Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Vinay Badhwar

    3   Division of Cardiac Surgery, West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, West Virginia
  • Jeffrey P. Jacobs

    1   Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Babatunde Yerokun

    4   Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • Amelia Wallace

    4   Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
  • Karianna Milewski

    1   Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Wilson Y. Szeto

    1   Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Joseph E. Bavaria

    1   Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
  • Prashanth Vallabhajosyula

    5   Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

Funding None.

Abstract

Objective Hybrid arch procedures (arch vessel debranching with thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair [TEVAR] coverage of arch pathology) have been presented as an alternative to total arch replacement (TAR). But multicenter-based analyses of these two procedures are needed to benchmark the field and establish areas of improvement.

Methods The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database from July 2014 to December 2015 was queried for elective TAR and hybrid arch procedures. Demographics and operative characteristics were compared and stepwise variable selection was used to create a risk-set used for adjustment of all multivariable models.

Results A total of 1,011 patients met inclusion criteria, 884 underwent TAR, and 127 had hybrid arch procedures. TAR patients were younger (mean age: 62.7 ± 13.3 vs. 66.7 ± 11.9 years; p = 0.001) and had less peripheral vascular disease (34.0 vs. 49.6%; p < 0.001) and preoperative dialysis (1.7 vs. 4.7%; p = 0.026), but similar history of stroke (p = 0.91)/cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.52). TAR patients had more concomitant procedures (60 vs. 34.6%; p < 0.0001). TAR patients had lower mortality (6.7 vs. 12.6%; p = 0.02), stroke (6.9 vs. 15%; p = 0.002), paralysis (1.8 vs. 7.1%; p = 0.002), renal failure (4.6 vs. 8.7%; p = 0.045), and STS morbidity (34.2 vs. 42.5%; p = 0.067). Composite mortality, stroke, and paralysis were significantly lower with TAR (11.5 vs. 25.2%; p = 0.0001). After risk adjustment, analysis showed hybrid arch procedures imparted an increased odds of mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.91, p = 0.046), stroke (OR = 2.3, p = 0.005), and composite endpoint of stroke or mortality (OR = 2.31, p = 0.0002).

Conclusion TAR remains the gold standard for elective aortic arch pathologies. Despite risk adjustment, hybrid arch procedures were associated with increased risk of mortality and stroke, advocating for careful adoption of these strategies.



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 22. Juli 2019

Angenommen: 02. Oktober 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
04. Oktober 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA