Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection

Edel P. Kavanagh, Sherif Sultan, Fionnuala Jordan, Ala Elhelali, Declan Devane, Dave Veerasingam, Niamh Hynes

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review


Background: A dissection of the aorta is a separation or tear of the intima from the media. This tear allows blood to flow not only through the original aortic flow channel (known as the true lumen), but also through a second channel between the intima and media (known as the false lumen). Aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition which can be rapidly fatal. There is debate on the optimal surgical approach for aortic arch dissection. People with ascending aortic dissection have poor rates of survival. Currently open surgical repair is regarded as the standard treatment for aortic arch dissection. We intend to review the role of hybrid and open repair in aortic arch dissection. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a hybrid technique of treatment over conventional open repair in the management of aortic arch dissection. Search methods: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 8 February 2021. We also undertook reference checking for additional studies. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs), which compared the effects of hybrid repair techniques versus open surgical repair of aortic arch dissection. Outcomes of interest were dissection-related mortality and all-cause mortality, neurological deficit, cardiac injury, respiratory compromise, renal ischaemia, false lumen thrombosis (defined by partial or complete thrombosis) and mesenteric ischaemia. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the literature searches to identify those that met our inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Main results: We identified one ongoing study and two unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Due to a lack of study data, we could not compare the outcomes of hybrid repair to conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection. Authors' conclusions: This review revealed one ongoing RCT and two unpublished RCTs evaluating hybrid versus conventional open repair for aortic arch surgery. Observational data suggest that hybrid repair for aortic arch dissection could potentially be favourable, but conclusions can not be drawn from these studies, which are highly selective, and are based on the clinical status of the patient, the presence of comorbidities and the skills of the operators. However, a conclusion about its definitive benefit over conventional open surgical repair cannot be made from this review without published RCTs or CCTs. Future RCTs or CCTs need to have adequate sample sizes and follow-up, and assess clinically-relevant outcomes, in order to determine the optimal treatment for people with aortic arch dissection. It must be noted that this may not be feasible, due to the reasons mentioned.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberCD012920
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Issue number7
StatePublished - Jul 25 2021
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)


Dive into the research topics of 'Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this