Total arch replacement versus hybrid operation for aortic arch aneurysm in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND

There is not sufficient evidence of the superiority of hybrid procedures over total arch replacement (TAR) for the aortic arch aneurysm of an elderly patients. This retrospective study aimed to compare total arch replacement and hybrid procedures for treatment of aortic arch aneurysms in patients aged ≥75.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter retrospective investigation of peri-operative outcomes of patients undergoing aortic arch aneurysm repair using either TAR or hybrid procedures between January 2012 and May 2021. Risk factors for mortality were evaluated using multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

This study included 90 patients, of which 28 underwent hybrid procedures (hybrid group: frozen elephant trunk =9, zone 0 =6, zone 1 =1, zone 2 =12), and 62 underwent TAR (TAR group), and the mean duration of follow-up was 27.0±28.8 months. In patient characteristics, the incidence of chronic obstructive lung disease and chronic kidney disease in the TAR group was significantly higher than in the hybrid group, and other operative risk factors were not significantly different in both groups. No significant differences in the incidence of post-operative complications and mortality on hospitalization. Survival rates of both groups were not significantly different (P=0.31). However, re-intervention rates after aortic arch aneurysm repair were significantly higher in the hybrid group compared to the TAR group (freedom from re-intervention rates at 1, 3, 5 years: 100%, 93%, 93% in the TAR group, and 90%, 80%, 80% in the hybrid group, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no definitive evidence of the superiority of hybrid procedures over TAR, although the risk of re-intervention was higher in the former group. The surgical strategy for aortic arch aneurysms should be selected based on the patient's demographic and anatomical characteristics.