Have hybrid procedures replaced open aortic arch reconstruction in high-risk patients? A comparative study of elective open arch debranching with endovascular stent graft placement and conventional elective open total and distal aortic arch reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE

Open total arch procedures have been associated with significant morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple comorbidities. Aortic arch debranching with endovascular graft placement, the hybrid arch procedure, has emerged as a surgical option in this patient population. This study evaluates the outcomes of a contemporary comparative series from one institution of open total arch and hybrid arch procedures for extensive aortic arch pathology.

METHODS

From July 2000 to March 2009, 1196 open arch procedures were performed, including 45 elective and 7 emergency open total arch procedures. From 2005 to 2009, 64 hybrid arch procedures were performed: 37 emergency type A dissections and 27 elective open arch debranchings. Hemiarch procedures were excluded.

RESULTS

The hybrid arch cohort was significantly older (P = .008) and had greater predominance of atherosclerotic pathophysiology (P < .001). The incidence of permanent cerebral neurologic deficit was similar at 4% (1/27) for the hybrid arch cohort and 9% (4/45) for the open aortic arch cohort. In-hospital mortality was similar at 11% (3/27) for the hybrid arch cohort and 16% (7/45) for the open aortic arch cohort. However, in the open arch group, there was a significant difference in mortality between patients aged less than 75 years at 9% (3/34) and patients aged more than 75 years at 36% (4/11) (P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid arch procedures provide a safe alternative to open repair. This study suggests the hybrid arch approach has a lower mortality for high-risk patients aged more than 75 years. This extends the indication for the hybrid arch approach in patients with complex aortic arch pathology previously considered prohibitively high risk for conventional open total arch repair.