Mid-term Outcomes of Endovascular and Hybrid Procedures to Treat Complex Aortic Arch Pathologies

Purpose: To compare the mid-term outcomes of endovascular and hybrid procedures in treating aortic arch pathologies with an unfavorable proximal landing zone, and analyze the different indications of the 2 methods. Methods: We collected the clinical data from 59 patients with complex aortic arch pathologies who underwent endovascular or hybrid surgery from March 2018 to April 2020 at a single center. Among the patients, 45 were treated by branched or fenestrated surgery and 14 by hybrid surgery. The clinical data of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative results were retrospectively analyzed and compared. The main study indexes were the branch patency rate and endoleakage rate during the follow-up period. The secondary study indexes included the operation success rate, operative time, hospital expenses, complication incidence, freedom from reintervention rate, mortality, etc. Results: The operation success rate of all the groups was 100%. The hospital expenses of the hybrid group were lower than those of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The operative time of the hybrid group was longer than that of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The incidence of anatomic variants in the hybrid group was 28.6%, which was significantly higher than that in the endovascular group (2.2%, p=0.011). However, there were no significant differences in operative bleeding, ventilator use duration, and treatment time in intensive care units between the 2 groups (p>0.05). Follow-up was conducted for a period of 12 to 34 months. Four patients of the hybrid group experienced numbness of the upper limb (28.57%); the proportion was higher than the endovascular group (0%, p=0.002). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of endoleaks, retrograde aortic dissection, target lesion, secondary operation, branch patency rate, paraplegia, cerebral apoplexy, renal failure, or other complications in either group (p>0.05). The mortality of the endovascular group was 6.67% (3/45). Overall cumulative survival at 1 year was 100% in the hybrid group and 93.3% in the endovascular group. There was no statistical difference in the increase of the true lumen between the 2 groups for vascular remodeling (p>0.05). Conclusion: The hybrid surgery costs less and proves more suitable for treating variants of the aortic arch. The endovascular treatment still has limitations due to anatomical conditions.

Automated summary

This study compared the mid-term outcomes of endovascular and hybrid procedures in treating aortic arch pathologies, and analyzed the different indications of the two methods. The results showed that hybrid surgery costs less and is more suitable for treating variants of the aortic arch, while endovascular treatment still has limitations due to anatomical conditions.