Ten Years of Endovascular Aortic Arch Repair

Purpose: To evaluate a 10-year single-center experience of arch endovascular aortic repair (AEVAR) using the hybrid approach. Methods: Between 1999 and 2009, 311 patients were treated with endografts for thoracic aortic pathologies. The aortic arch was involved in 116 (37.3%) patients (97 men; mean age 70.3 +/- 10.7 years, range 27-84). There were 83 atherosclerotic aneurysms, 21 type B dissections, and 12 other lesions whose proximal landing zones were categorized according to Ishimaru's classification as 24 zone 0, 27 zone 1, and 65 zone 2. A hybrid approach was performed for all zone 0 and zone 1 procedures and in nearly half (47.7%) of zone 2 procedures. Early and midterm outcomes were reviewed retrospectively. Results: The initial clinical success in zone 0 aneurysms was 83.3%, with a 30-day mortality of 12.5% due to intraoperative stroke in all the cases. The respiratory failure rate was 12.5%, and there was 1 type I endoleak that spontaneously resolved at follow-up. Midterm clinical success at a mean 26 +/- 21 months was 83.3%. In zone 1 aneurysms, the initial clinical success was 82.1% without 30-day mortality or perioperative stroke. The midterm clinical success was 81.5% at a mean 21 +/- 17 months [2 (7.4%) late aneurysm-related deaths]. Four type I endoleaks spontaneously resolved in 3 patients. In zone 2 cases, the initial clinical success was 90.8%. There was 1 (1.5%) intraoperative death and another (1.5%) within 30 days; 1 (1.5%) patient suffered a stroke, and the respiratory and renal failure rates were 3.0%, respectively. This is the only zone in which paraplegia (2 patients, 3.0%) was encountered. The midterm clinical success was 93.9% at a mean 34 +/- 20 months. Four type I endoleaks spontaneously resolved in 3 patients at follow-up. Conclusion: In selected patients, early and midterm outcomes of AEVAR using the hybrid approach are promising; however, mortality and morbidity, especially for zones 0 and 1, are not negligible. Our results may have practical implications for the ongoing evolution of the hybrid procedure in the aortic arch, as well as for patients fit for traditional surgery. J Endovasc Ther. 2010;17:1-11