OBJECTIVES: With the introduction of endovascular stent graft technology, a variety of surgical options are available for patients with aortic aneurysms. We sought to evaluate early-term and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing endovascular and open surgical repair for non-dissected aortic arch aneurysm. METHODS: Overall, 200 patients underwent treatment for isolated non-dissected aortic arch aneurysm between January 2008 and February 2016: 133 patients had open surgery and 67, endovascular repair. Early-term and mid-term outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Seventy percent ( n = 47) needing endovascular repair underwent fenestrated stent graft and 30% ( n = 20) underwent the debranched technique. Patients in the open surgery group were younger (71 vs 75 years, P < 0.001) and had a lower prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (11% vs 35%, P < 0.001). Intensive care unit stay (1 vs 3 days, P < 0.001), hospital stay (11 vs 17 days, P < 0.001) and surgical time (208 vs 390 min, P < 0.001) were lower in the endovascular repair group than in the open surgery group. There were 3 in-hospital deaths each in the open surgery and endovascular groups (2% vs 5%, respectively, P = 0.40). Mid-term survival ( P < 0.001) and freedom from reintervention ( P = 0.009) were better in the open surgery than in the endovascular repair group. No aneurysm-related deaths were observed. The propensity-matched comparison ( n = 58) demonstrated that survival was better in the open surgery group ( P = 0.011); no significant difference was seen in the reintervention rate ( P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Close follow-up for re-intervention may reduce the risk for aneurysm-related deaths and provide acceptable outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular repair.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hori et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: