Midterm outcome of supra-aortic vessels reconstruction: A single-center report

Figures

• 

  Midterm outcome of supra-aortic vessels reconstruction.

• 

  Figure 1. Flow diagram of the selection process. A total of 244 patients were included in the study. A total of 221 patients were included in the follow-up analysis. TEVAR, Thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

• 

  Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. In our report, the overall survival was comparable among patients who underwent endovascular versus surgical bypass (log-rank, P = .79).

• 

  Figure 3. Adverse event analysis. There was no difference in the midterm postoperative adverse event when comparing endovascular and surgical bypass (log-rank, P = .26). Adverse event: intraluminal device occlusion/stenosis, device migration, disease progression, limb ischemia, coil migration, abdominal aortic aneurysm, superior mesenteric artery malperfusion, or mycotic aneurysm.

• 

  Figure 4. With a tailored approach, the endovascular reconstruction of the supra-aortic vessels had an acceptable primary patency rate with a low rate of complications.

• 

  Figure E1. A competing risk model is used to estimate the cumulative incidence and risk of adverse event (A) and reintervention (B) versus mortality among patients with endovascular and surgical bypass. In our model, mortality was set as the competing risk.

• 

  Figure E2. Cumulative incidence function curves are used to estimate and compare the incidence of any adverse event (top) and reintervention (bottom) among patients with endovascular and surgical bypass (95% CI). Analysis and graphic design were done using the package “cmprsk” for RStudio.

• 

  Figure E3. Estimated cumulative incidence curves (solid lines) for each combination of a competing event (mortality, adverse event, and reoperation) among types of supra-aortic reconstruction (surgical and endovascular bypass) with 95% pointwise CIs (broken lines).