Comparison of Short and Midterm Aortic Reinterventions in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Treated by Frozen Elephant Trunk or Conventional Arch Repair.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes after acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) are related to remodelling of the descending thoracic aorta and aortic reinterventions. We compared the impact of an extensive repair at the index procedure using the Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) technique, versus a conventional arch repair, on long-term remodelling of the descending thoracic and reintervention related to the aorta. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent conventional arch repair (conventional group) or FET repair (FET group) for an ATAAD from September 2018 to November 2021 were included. Patients who died before discharge or were lost to follow-up prior to the first appointment were excluded from the analysis. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography angiography was reconstructed and diameter of the true/false lumen of the remaining aorta was compared up to 1 year. Negative (increased total diameter ≥ 5 mm) aortic remodelling was collected for each computed tomography angiography, as well as aortic reinterventions. Comparison of demographic, anatomical, and perioperative complications data were performed using Wilcoxon test for continuous variables or Chi-square test for categorical covariates. The Kaplan-Meier method estimator was used to assess survival rates. The Log rank test was used to compare survival curves between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Thirty nine patients were included, 22 in the conventional group and 17 in the FET group (82% males, mean age 60 ± 12 years). In the FET group, distal anastomosis was performed in zone 0 or 1 for 82% of patients using the simplified delivery technique. Median maximum preoperative descending aortic diameter was larger in the FET group (33 mm [30; 37] vs. 30 mm [28; 32] [P = 0.0172]). At 30 days, the rate of negative remodelling on the descending thoracic aorta was significantly higher in the conventional group (50%) than in the FET group (8%, P = 0.02). At 1 year, Kaplan-Meier analysis shown a freedom from descending aortic negative remodeling of 35.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.7-66.1%) in conventional group and 44.9% (CI 95% 26.1-77.2%) in FET group with no significant difference. However, early negative remodelling was observed for the conventional group. Within a year, freedom from reintervention was observed for 74.4% (95% CI 57.1-97%) of patients in the conventional group and 75.5 (95% CI 57.1-99.7%) of patients in the FET group with no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Negative evolution of descending aorta remains a challenge after ATAAD. An extensive repair using the FET technique during the index procedure seems to be associated with satisfying short-term remodelling of descending aorta.

Obesity is Not Associated with Adverse Perioperative or Poorer Clinical Outcomes following Thoracic and Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a risk factor for higher morbidity and mortality following open aortic repair but currently there is limited literature on its impact on clinical and procedural outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and branched-fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (B-FEVAR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case-control analysis of a prospectively collected nonrandomized database to evaluate the effects of obesity on procedural and clinical outcomes after B-FEVAR/TEVAR in treatment of pararenal/thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and dissection at the University hospital of Nantes (France) between January 2016 and December 2021. Patients were divided in 2 groups according to their body mass index (BMI) and the rate of technical success, complications (renal, pulmonary, cardiac, and neurological events), 30-day and long-term survival, freedom from target vessel instability and reintervention were compared. RESULTS: 195 patients were included (mean age 69.6 DS±11.2; n = 135, 69.2% men; mean BMI: 26.6 kg/m2 range 19-41) totalling n = 72 (36.8%) TEVAR, n = 107 (55.4%) FEVAR and n = 14 (7.3%) BEVAR. Patients were divided in 2 groups [obese: BMI≥30 kg/m2n = 52 (26.7%); and nonobese, BMI<30 kg/m2, n = 143 (73.3%) that statistically differed only in terms of coronary artery disease (obese 42.3% vs. 26.6% nonobese, P = 0.035) and diabetes (obese 25% vs. 12.6% nonobese, P = 0.03). No statistical differences were noted in primary technical (94.2% vs. 94.4%, P = 1.00) and clinical (92.3% vs. 95.1%, P = 0.49) success. Overall morbidity (30.8% vs. 21.1%, P = 0.16), visceral vessels instability (1.9% vs. 1.4% P = 1.00), reintervention rate within 30 days (9.6% vs. 5.6% P = 0.33), 90 days (7.7% vs. 9.8%, P = 0.78) and during follow-up (9.8% vs. 20%, P = 0.14) were comparable. No statistical difference were noted in 30-day mortality (3.8% vs. 4.9%, P = 1.00) and the 2-year follow-up survival (86.8% vs. 78.4%, P = 0.180) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, obesity was not associated to worst clinical outcomes or higher mortality rate following TEVAR/B-FEVAR. However, considering our small patient sample, a conclusive analysis on obesity as risk factors for adverse events after endovascular treatment is not possible. A larger sample from the collaboration of multiple centers will be required to obtain definitive conclusions.