Hybrid repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms involving the visceral vessels: Comparative analysis between number of vessels reconstructed, conduit, and gender

Background: Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repairs are technically challenging. The advent of endovascular aneurysm repair in combination with visceral/renal artery bypasses has allowed for hybrid endovascular repair of these aneurysms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether outcomes were affected by the number of visceral/renal artery reconstructions, conduit, or gender. Methods: All patients who underwent visceral/renal bypass associated with an endovascular aortic aneurysm repair were prospectively studied in a vascular registry and retrospectively reviewed between the years 2004 and 2009. Patients undergoing standard open TAAA repair and those with aortic arch branch vessel reconstructions associated with thoracic endovascular repair were excluded from this analysis. Patients were segregated into two groups on the basis of number of vessels bypassed. Group 1 (n = 9) consisted of patients who required one or two bypasses, whereas group 2 (n = 15) consisted of patients who required three or four bypasses. Results: A total of 64 TAAA repairs were performed. In all, 22 patients with hybrid repair and aortic arch vessel reconstructions and 18 patients with open TAAA repair were excluded from this analysis. A total of 24 (38%) patients with hybrid endovascular repair were evaluated in this study. The 30-day mortality was found to be 12.5% (3/24) and the incidence of spinal cord ischemia was 8.3% (2/24). Preoperative comorbidities and American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) scores were reported to be similar between the two groups. As compared with group 2, patients in group 1 were reported to be younger (69.7 ± 10.6 vs. 76.0 ± 5.7 years [p = 0.074]), had less blood loss (1,200 ± 1,088 mL vs. 3,119 ± 2,188 mL, [p = 0.06]), required fewer blood transfusions (5.33 ± 2.31 vs. 9.09 ± 7.06 units packed red blood cells (PRBC) [p = 0.39]), and had a shorter length of stay (11.4 ± 5.6 vs. 21.9 ± 15.1 days, [p = 0.090]). There was no difference in 30-day mortality rates between the two groups. The incidence of perioperative morbidity, including bowel ischemia (11%[1/9] vs. 27% [4/15], [p = 0.39]), myocardial infarction (11% [1/9] vs. 13% [2/15], [p = 0.88]), wound infection (0% vs. 27% [4/15], [p = 0.09]), and pneumonia (11% [1/9] vs. 40% [6/15], [p = 0.14]) was found to be less in group 1 than group 2, but this difference was not significant. Patients with three or four bypasses had a significantly greater requirement for a skilled nursing facility or a rehabilitation facility after discharge (79% [11/14] vs. 29% [2/7], p = 0.026). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative outcomes when comparing choice of conduit (autogenous or prosthetic) or gender. Results from the Cox-proportional hazards regression showed that bowel ischemia was the only postoperative complication associated with decreased survival (p = 0.037, confidence interval [0.1328-4.3075]). Conclusions: Hybrid aortic aneurysm repair carries a significant risk of patient morbidity with an acceptable mortality for patients considered to be at a high risk for standard thoracoabdominal repair. In patients requiring fewer visceral/renal reconstructions, there is a trend toward fewer postoperative complications and a significantly shorter length of stay. Moreover, there is a significantly lower need for skilled nursing facility requirements after discharge from the hospital. Bowel ischemia is associated with significantly worse outcome and better attempts at avoiding this complication and aggressive management is indicated.