Arch debranching versus elephant trunk procedures for hybrid repair of thoracic aortic pathologies.

BACKGROUND

We compared outcomes of arch debranching (AD) and elephant trunk (ET) techniques when used with thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

A review was performed of consecutive patients with proximal thoracic aortic pathologies repaired with a hybrid approach.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2009, 58 patients underwent first-stage ET (n = 21) or AD (n = 37). Cardiopulmonary bypass was utilized in 100% of ET procedures and 68% of AD procedures (p < 0.01). Circulatory arrest was used in 86% of ET and 27% of AD cases (p < 0.01). The second stage was completed in 76% of ET and 76% of AD patients. Rates of spinal cord ischemia (ET 0 of 21, AD 0 of 37, p = 1.0), stroke (ET 2 of 21, AD 4 of 37, p = 1.0), and 30-day mortality (ET 4 of 21, AD 6 of 37, p = 1.0) were similar. Each group had one major aortic complication between the two stages. Type Ia endovascular leak at 1 and 12 months occurred in 13% ET patients and 4% AD patients at 1 month (p = 0.54) and in 0% ET patients and 4% AD patients at 12 months (p = 1.0). Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1 and 12 months were 90.5% ± 6.4% and 73.1% ± 10% in the ET group, and 86.5% ± 5.6 and 71.6% ± 8.5 in the AD group, respectively (p = 0.68). The risk of a secondary procedure at 1 and 12 months was 76.2% ± 9.3% and 58.7% ± 12% in the ET group, and 71.0% ± 7.8% and 52.8% ± 10% in the AD group, respectively (p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Arch debranching achieves equivalent results to standard elephant trunk repair but with a decreased need for cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest.