Key result
Thoraflex hybrid and E-vita Open prostheses showed similar in-hospital mortality (11% vs 12%; P>0.99), but Thoraflex had higher rates of secondary interventions (22% vs 0%; P=0.003).
Why the study?
To evaluate early- and mid-term outcomes and aortic remodelling in patients undergoing implantation of two different frozen elephant trunk prostheses for acute aortic dissection.
Does the Thoraflex hybrid prosthesis compared to the E-vita Open prosthesis improve clinical outcomes and aortic remodeling in patients with acute aortic dissection?
Population
88 consecutive patients undergoing frozen elephant trunk prosthesis surgery for acute aortic dissection
Comparison
Thoraflex hybrid (n = 55) vs E-vita Open graft (n = 33)
Design
Multicentre cohort study
Follow-up
1 year
Authors
Loading...
May inform FET prosthesis choice in acute aortic dissection; leaves open need for randomized comparisons.
Cohort (n=88)
Yes
Does the Thoraflex hybrid prosthesis compared to the E-vita Open prosthesis improve clinical outcomes and aortic remodeling in patients with acute aortic dissection?
Absolute Event Rate: 11% vs 12%
p-value: p=>0.99
While both frozen elephant trunk prostheses showed similar in-hospital outcomes for acute aortic dissection, the E-vita Open prosthesis was associated with fewer secondary aortic interventions at 1 year.
Berger et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in acute aortic dissection (n=88). Thoraflex hybrid prosthesis vs. E-vita Open prosthesis was evaluated on in-hospital mortality (p=>0.99). Thoraflex hybrid and E-vita Open prostheses showed similar in-hospital mortality (11% vs 12%; P>0.99), but Thoraflex had higher rates of secondary interventions (22% vs 0%; P=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: