Open surgery versus branched endovascular repair of the aortic arch in residual dissections after type A surgical repair.

BACKGROUND

Redo open arch repair is challenging; arch branched endovascular aortic repair (a-BEVAR) offers a less invasive alternative. However, direct comparisons are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of open arch repair versus a-BEVAR in patients with residual aortic dissection after ascending aorta replacement for acute Stanford type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

This multicentre retrospective study included patients treated for residual dissection after type A aortic dissection in ten high-volume centres from January 2018 to May 2024. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was used to adjust for baseline differences. Primary endpoints included 30-day mortality and stroke rates, and secondary endpoints included acute kidney injury, spinal cord ischaemia, reintervention, aortic-related mortality, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 183 patients were included: 89 (48.6%) underwent open arch repair and 94 (51.4%) underwent a-BEVAR. After propensity score matching, there were 57 patients in each group. The 30-day mortality rate was 3.5% for open arch repair and 5.3% for a-BEVAR (P = 0.220). The stroke rate was 5.3% for open arch repair and 3.5% for a-BEVAR (P = 0.650). Open arch repair was associated with significantly higher rates of prolonged (>48 h) intubation (28.1% versus 3.5%; P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (31.6% versus 8.8%; P = 0.002), and temporary dialysis (22.8% versus 7.0%; P = 0.002). The median hospital length of stay was 21 days for open arch repair and 10 days for a-BEVAR (P < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 30 months (i.q.r. 7-49), no difference in mortality was observed (10.5% for open arch repair versus 12.3% for a-BEVAR; P = 0.770).

CONCLUSION

a-BEVAR provides a less invasive alternative to open arch repair with reduced complications. Long-term studies are needed.