Background: This study aimed to evaluate the early and long-term outcomes of a single center using a frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure for chronic type B or non-A non-B aortic dissection.Methods: From February 2009 to December 2019, 79 patients diagnosed with chronic type B or non-A non-B aortic dissection who underwent the FET procedure were included in the present study. We analyzed operation mortality and early and long-term outcomes, including complications, survival and interventions.Results: The operation mortality rate was 5.1% (4/79). Spinal cord injury occurred in 3.8% (3/79), stroke in 2.5% (2/79), and acute renal failure in 5.1% (4/79). The median follow-up time was 53 months. The overall survival rates were 96.2, 92.3, 88.0, 79.8, and 76.2% at 1/2, 1, 3, 5 and 7 years, respectively. Moreover, 79.3% of patients did not require distal aortic reintervention at 7 years. The overall survival in the subacute group was superior to that in the chronic group (P = 0.047).Conclusion: The FET technique is a safe and feasible approach for treating chronic type B and non-A non-B aortic dissection in patients who have contraindications for primary endovascular aortic repair. The technique combines the advantages of both open surgical repair and endovascular intervention, providing comparable early and long-term follow-up outcomes and freedom from reintervention.

Objective: This study aims to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes of the stented elephant trunk (SET) procedure combined with supra-arch branch reconstruction and one-stage hybrid arch repair combined thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with extra-anatomic bypass in the management of distal arch disease.Methods: From January 2009 to January 2019, 97 patients underwent one-stage hybrid arch repair combined with TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass (HAR group), and 206 patients underwent the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction (SET group). We used inverse-probability-of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust baseline differences.Results: Before IPTW adjustment, there was no significant difference in operative mortality between the two groups (5.2 vs. 1.0%, P = 0.064). The incidences of stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and endoleak also showed no significant differences (4.1 vs. 0.5%, P = 0.066; 2.1 vs. 1.5%, P = 1.000; 0 vs. 1.0%, P = 0.831; 6.2 vs. 1.9%, P = 0.113, respectively). After IPTW adjustment, the incidences of stroke, SCI, and AKI showed no significant differences between the two groups (1.8 vs. 1.1%, P = 0.138; 0.8 vs. 1.6%, P = 0.448; and 0 vs. 0.7%, P = 0.148, respectively). However, the HAR group tended to have higher operative mortality and incidence of endoleak than the SET group (12.4 vs. 1.3%, P = 0.01; 9.9 vs. 1.8%, P = 0.031, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, open repair decreased the risks of endoleak (odds ratio [OR], 0.171, 95% CI, 0.060–0.401; P < 0.001) and operative mortality (OR, 0.093, 95% CI, 0.027–0.238; P < 0.001). The overall survival and event-free survival of the HAR group were significantly lower than those of the SET group (P < 0.001).Conclusion: One-stage hybrid arch repair combined TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass and the SET procedure with supra-arch branch reconstruction both provided good postoperative treatment outcomes for distal arch disease. However, hybrid arch repair increased the risks of endoleak and operative mortality. The SET procedure provided better mid-term survival than hybrid arch repair without increasing operative mortality. Carefully selecting the indications for the procedure, while receiving close long-term follow-up, may improve the survival rate of patients undergoing hybrid arch repair.

No abstract