Comparison of Total Arch and Partial Arch Transposition During Hybrid Endovascular Repair for Aortic Arch Disease

ObjectiveTotal arch transposition (TAT) during hybrid endovascular repair for aortic arch disease is believed to allow a better landing zone, but also to be associated with higher peri-operative mortality than partial arch transposition (PAT). Information on this issue is limited.MethodThis study was a retrospective analysis. All 53 consecutive patients with aortic arch disease (41 males, mean age 65.0 years) who underwent hybrid endovascular repair with TAT (zone 0, n=20) or PAT (zone 1 or 2, n=33) from 2008 to 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. The peri-operative and late outcomes of these two groups were compared.ResultsBaseline characteristics, including EuroSCORE II results, were similar in the two groups. After procedures, peri-operative mortalities and stroke rates were similar in the two groups (5.0% vs. 9.1%, p=1.000, and 10.0% vs. 6.1%, p=.627). Interestingly, all four strokes occurred in patients with a type III aortic arch irrespective of transposition type. Primary success rates (80.0% vs. 69.7%, p=.527) and type I endoleak incidences (20.0% vs. 27.3%, p=.744) were not significantly different. During follow up (mean duration 36.9 months), overall survival (89.7% vs. 87.4% at 1 year and 89.7% vs. 79.3% at 3 years; p=.375) and re-intervention free survival rates (78.6% vs. 92.0% at 1 year; 72.0% vs. 62.2% at 3 years, p=.872) were similar in the two groups.ConclusionMorbidity and mortality were high within the first year of hybrid endovascular therapy for aortic arch disease, implying that candidates for hybrid procedures need to be selected carefully. Hybrid endovascular repair with TAT was found to have peri-operative mortality, stroke, and long-term survival rates comparable with PAT, so hybrid endovascular repair may be considered, irrespective of type of arch reconstruction, when clinically indicated.