The frozen elephant trunk (FET) repair technique combines conventional arch repair with the patient under circulatory arrest with stent grafting and is increasingly being used to treat extensive thoracic aortic disease. This surgical approach is evolving, including its use for complications after thoracic aortic stent grafting - the so-called reversed frozen elephant trunk (RFET). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of FET and RFET operations in high-risk patients.
Between July 2001 and December 2010, 31 patients underwent FET and 19 patients underwent RFET for extensive thoracic aortic disease. Causes included aneurysm (n=32), acute dissection (n=17), and rupture (n=1). Twenty-three cases (46%) were for urgent or emergency indications. Patient data and outcomes were collected through a prospectively maintained clinical database and 3-dimensional analysis of computed tomography (CT) scans. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methodology.
In-hospital mortality was 8% (n=4, including 1 emergency RFET procedure for aortic rupture and 2 urgent FET procedures for symptomatic degenerative aneurysm). Stroke occurred in 5 patients (10%) and spinal cord injury in 4 patients (8%). Mean hospital stay was 14.3 days (range 4 to 67 days). Five endoleaks were observed (4 type II, 1 type I) requiring 2 endovascular reinterventions. Mean follow-up was 17 months (range, 1 to 76 months) and actuarial survival was 87% at 2 years.
Frozen elephant trunk repair is an effective surgical strategy for managing high-risk patients with extensive pathologic conditions of the thoracic aorta. The RFET approach is a feasible option for proximal aortic complications after previous descending stent grafting. Intermediate outcomes are reasonable for both approaches and further evaluation of these techniques is warranted.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: OPINION STATEMENT: Conventional surgery for thoracic aortic pathology involves replacing the affected segment of aorta with an interposition graft and often requires the use of extracorporeal circulatory support with or without deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. Although operative results have improved consistently over 60 years, patients with extensive aneurysms face a considerable risk with conventional surgery, particularly when burdened with multiple comorbidities. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was first performed in 1994 and has become a well-established alternative therapy for many thoracic aortic pathologies. TEVAR is most frequently performed through a small groin incision to access the common femoral artery. Wires and catheters are used to deliver and deploy the stent graft in the thoracic aorta under fluoroscopic control. Occasionally, TEVAR is performed as part of a complex hybrid procedure including one stage of conventional open surgery that may utilize a thoracic incision and cardiopulmonary bypass support. The less invasive nature of TEVAR offers the potential for lower mortality and peri-procedural morbidity. Although long-term results of TEVAR are still being gathered, mid-term results are excellent and most late vascular complications can be treated with additional transcatheter procedures. Recent development of fenestrated and branched stent grafts is expanding the application of endovascular therapies to complex aortic pathologies involving the thoracoabdominal aorta and aortic arch. Although conventional techniques continue to be the gold standard for treatment of ascending aortic pathology, recent reports have proven TEVAR to be a viable alternative in specific situations. Design improvements continue to expand the indications for TEVAR, and technological advancements in the field of imaging facilitate safer and more accurate planning, delivery, and assessment of patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms. Hybrid operating rooms provide the optimal environment with state of the art imaging technology for the cardiovascular team to perform TEVAR or alternative hybrid procedures.
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine 02/2012; 14(2):149-63. DOI:10.1007/s11936-012-0169-6
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective:
Available data on clinical outcomes of hybrid aortic arch repair are limited, especially for patients with aortic dissection. The objective of this review was to provide pooled analysis of periprocedural mortality and neurologic outcomes in hybrid procedures involving the aortic arch for dissection and other aortic diseases.
Studies involving hybrid aortic arch procedures (2002-2011) were systematically searched and reviewed. End points were periprocedural mortality, stroke, and spinal cord ischemia.
A total of 50 studies including 1886 patients were included. Perioperative mortality ranged from 1.6% to 25.0% with a pooled event ratio of 10.8% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 9.3-12.5). Perioperative stroke, regardless of severity, ranged from 0.8% to 25.0% (pooled ratio 6.9%; 95% CI, 5.7%-8.4), and spinal cord ischemia, including permanent and transitory events, ranged from 1.0% to 25.0% (pooled ratio, 6.8%; 95% CI, 5.6-8.2). Neurologic but no mortality risk was affected by timing and center volume with decreased rates in more recent and higher volume studies. In dissected aorta, perioperative mortality rate was 9.8% (95% CI, 7.7-12.4), stroke 4.3% (95% CI, 3.0-6.3), and spinal cord ischemia 5.8% (95% CI, 4.2-7.9). Perioperative mortality was higher in diseases that extended to the ascending aorta (15.1% vs 7.6%; odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.17-6.7; P = .021), whereas there were no significant differences in the neurologic risks of stroke or spinal cord ischemia.
Hybrid repair of the aortic arch carries not negligible risks of perioperative mortality and neurologic morbidity. Risk of neurologic complications has decreased with timing and center volume and may be limited in dissection repairs. However, contemporary information on aortic hybrid arch procedures is mainly provided by small case series or retrospective studies with wide range of results.
The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 07/2012; 144(6). DOI:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.06.013 · 4.17 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.