Aortic arch aneurysm: Short- and mid-term results comparing open arch surgery and the hybrid procedure

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Open arch surgery for aortic arch aneurysm was historically associated with a high risk of postoperative morbi-mortality. Improved operative techniques have now lowered the incidence of these complications but in parallel, hybrid arch procedures have emerged. Nowadays, very little data are available about their mid-term results compared with open surgery. METHODS: From January 2002 to January 2014, 46 patients had treatment for an exclusive aortic arch aneurysm including 25 open arch surgeries and 21 type I hybrid arch procedures in our institution. All cases involved arch aneurysms involving at least one carotid artery (Zone 0 and Zone 1). Aneurysms of the distal arch and descending aorta were excluded (Zone 2 and beyond). Results from a retrospective database are reported. There were no patients lost to the follow-up. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in preoperative comorbidities between the two groups. The incidence of in-hospital mortality was similar at 20% (5/25) for open surgery and 19% (4/21) for hybrid procedure (P = 0.830). The incidence of permanent cerebral neurological deficit was comparable at 17.4% (4/23) for open surgery and 21.1% (4/19) for hybrid procedure (P = 1). Median survival was 109.5 months for open surgery and 56.3 months for hybrid procedure. Freedom from all-cause mortality was 78, 63, 63 and 57% at 1, 3, 5 and 7 years, respectively in the open surgical group. Freedom from all-cause mortality was 74, 55, 46 and 28% at 1, 3, 5 and 7 years, respectively in the hybrid group. Survival rates and incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebro-vascular event between open surgery and hybrid procedure were not statistically different (P = 0.530 and P = 0.325, respectively). However, incidence of reintervention was in favour of open surgery [14.5 vs 44.8% at 7 years, P = 0.045; 95% confidence interval: (0.06-0.97)]. CONCLUSIONS: The type I hybrid arch procedure fails to demonstrate better results compared with open surgery, regarding morbi-mortality at the short- and mid-term follow-up. Moreover, it increases the risk of reintervention. Patients treated by this technique must undergo a closer follow-up because of this risk. Larger randomized studies are needed to better define the exact indications of this therapy.