Abstract
OBJECTIVES To systematically review and pool the clinical outcomes of hybrid arch repair (HAR) and total arch replacement (TAR) with or without a frozen elephant trunk for treating aortic arch aneurysms, dissections, or other pathology in propensity score-matched studies.
METHODS We conducted electronic database searches in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify studies reporting outcomes of HAR versus TAR. Risk of bias was assessed using non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality analyzed using a random-effects model to compute the odds ratio (OR). Survival probability was expressed as hazard ratios (HR) calculated through the inverse variance method. The results were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS This meta-analysis included 13 studies with 3,392 patients. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between HAR and TAR groups (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.78-1.49; p = 0.630). However, HAR group showed a higher incidence of permanent neurological dysfunction (PND) (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.22-2.41; p < 0.001). In subgroup meta-analysis with isolated type A aortic dissection (ITAAD), HAR showed significantly lower in-hospital mortality (p = 0.040) but no difference in PND. Other post-operative complications were significantly lower in the HAR group for renal failure (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.87; p < 0.001), sternal re-entry due to bleeding (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.34-0.89; p = 0.010), and tracheostomy (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.96; p = 0.030). There is no statistical difference in 3-year survival probability (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.70-1.35; p = 0.870).
CONCLUSIONS TAR has more favorable than HAR in MDAD patients, offering lower rates of neurological dysfunction and better 3-year freedom from re-intervention. For ITAAD patients, HAR potentially provides better in-hospital mortality and 3-year survival rates, with fewer complications such as renal failure, re-sternotomy, and tracheostomy.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
