Comparison of aortic arch repair using the endovascular technique, total arch replacement and staged surgery

Akihiro Yoshitake, Kazuma Okamoto, Masataka Yamazaki, Naritaka Kimura, Akinori Hirano, Yasunori Iida, Takayuki Abe, Hideyuki Shimizu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the operative and long-term outcomes of various approaches for aortic arch repair. METHODS: A total of 436 consecutive patients who underwent aortic arch repair from January 2001 to March 2016 in our centre were evaluated. Of these, 276 underwent conventional total arch replacement (TAR), and 118 underwent thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The remaining 42 patients underwent staged thoracic endovascular repair (STEVAR). A total of 72 patients in the TEVAR group were matched to 72 patients who underwent open surgery including TAR or STEVAR by using propensity score analysis. RESULTS: Surgical outcomes showed shorter ICU and hospital stay in the TEVAR group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). The 30-day mortality and neurologic dysfunction showed no significant difference among the three groups (2.8 and 5.4% in TAR group, 1.7 and 8.5% in TEVAR group and 0 and 2.4% in STEVAR group; P = 0.500 and P = 0.297, respectively). Long-term survival was not significantly different among the three groups (78% in TAR group, 67% in TEVAR group and 81% in STEVAR group at 5 years; P = 0.123). Freedom from aortic reintervention was lower in the TEVAR group than in other groups (98% in TAR, 92% in TEVAR and 97% in STEVAR at 5 years, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Operative outcomes showed no significant differences between the groups except for early recovery after TEVAR. Longterm survival was similar between groups; however, TEVAR had inferior reintervention free rate.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1142-1148
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery
Volume51
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Endovascular Procedures
Thoracic Aorta
Thorax
Propensity Score
Survival
Neurologic Manifestations

Keywords

  • Aortic arch aneurysm
  • Endovascular procedures
  • Hybrid arch repair
  • Total arch replacement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of aortic arch repair using the endovascular technique, total arch replacement and staged surgery. / Yoshitake, Akihiro; Okamoto, Kazuma; Yamazaki, Masataka; Kimura, Naritaka; Hirano, Akinori; Iida, Yasunori; Abe, Takayuki; Shimizu, Hideyuki.

In: European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, Vol. 51, No. 6, 2017, p. 1142-1148.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{791eb8a554e74390b692e4e618f5f56f,
title = "Comparison of aortic arch repair using the endovascular technique, total arch replacement and staged surgery",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the operative and long-term outcomes of various approaches for aortic arch repair. METHODS: A total of 436 consecutive patients who underwent aortic arch repair from January 2001 to March 2016 in our centre were evaluated. Of these, 276 underwent conventional total arch replacement (TAR), and 118 underwent thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The remaining 42 patients underwent staged thoracic endovascular repair (STEVAR). A total of 72 patients in the TEVAR group were matched to 72 patients who underwent open surgery including TAR or STEVAR by using propensity score analysis. RESULTS: Surgical outcomes showed shorter ICU and hospital stay in the TEVAR group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). The 30-day mortality and neurologic dysfunction showed no significant difference among the three groups (2.8 and 5.4{\%} in TAR group, 1.7 and 8.5{\%} in TEVAR group and 0 and 2.4{\%} in STEVAR group; P = 0.500 and P = 0.297, respectively). Long-term survival was not significantly different among the three groups (78{\%} in TAR group, 67{\%} in TEVAR group and 81{\%} in STEVAR group at 5 years; P = 0.123). Freedom from aortic reintervention was lower in the TEVAR group than in other groups (98{\%} in TAR, 92{\%} in TEVAR and 97{\%} in STEVAR at 5 years, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Operative outcomes showed no significant differences between the groups except for early recovery after TEVAR. Longterm survival was similar between groups; however, TEVAR had inferior reintervention free rate.",
keywords = "Aortic arch aneurysm, Endovascular procedures, Hybrid arch repair, Total arch replacement",
author = "Akihiro Yoshitake and Kazuma Okamoto and Masataka Yamazaki and Naritaka Kimura and Akinori Hirano and Yasunori Iida and Takayuki Abe and Hideyuki Shimizu",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1093/ejcts/ezx028",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "1142--1148",
journal = "European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery",
issn = "1010-7940",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of aortic arch repair using the endovascular technique, total arch replacement and staged surgery

AU - Yoshitake, Akihiro

AU - Okamoto, Kazuma

AU - Yamazaki, Masataka

AU - Kimura, Naritaka

AU - Hirano, Akinori

AU - Iida, Yasunori

AU - Abe, Takayuki

AU - Shimizu, Hideyuki

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the operative and long-term outcomes of various approaches for aortic arch repair. METHODS: A total of 436 consecutive patients who underwent aortic arch repair from January 2001 to March 2016 in our centre were evaluated. Of these, 276 underwent conventional total arch replacement (TAR), and 118 underwent thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The remaining 42 patients underwent staged thoracic endovascular repair (STEVAR). A total of 72 patients in the TEVAR group were matched to 72 patients who underwent open surgery including TAR or STEVAR by using propensity score analysis. RESULTS: Surgical outcomes showed shorter ICU and hospital stay in the TEVAR group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). The 30-day mortality and neurologic dysfunction showed no significant difference among the three groups (2.8 and 5.4% in TAR group, 1.7 and 8.5% in TEVAR group and 0 and 2.4% in STEVAR group; P = 0.500 and P = 0.297, respectively). Long-term survival was not significantly different among the three groups (78% in TAR group, 67% in TEVAR group and 81% in STEVAR group at 5 years; P = 0.123). Freedom from aortic reintervention was lower in the TEVAR group than in other groups (98% in TAR, 92% in TEVAR and 97% in STEVAR at 5 years, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Operative outcomes showed no significant differences between the groups except for early recovery after TEVAR. Longterm survival was similar between groups; however, TEVAR had inferior reintervention free rate.

AB - OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the operative and long-term outcomes of various approaches for aortic arch repair. METHODS: A total of 436 consecutive patients who underwent aortic arch repair from January 2001 to March 2016 in our centre were evaluated. Of these, 276 underwent conventional total arch replacement (TAR), and 118 underwent thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR). The remaining 42 patients underwent staged thoracic endovascular repair (STEVAR). A total of 72 patients in the TEVAR group were matched to 72 patients who underwent open surgery including TAR or STEVAR by using propensity score analysis. RESULTS: Surgical outcomes showed shorter ICU and hospital stay in the TEVAR group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). The 30-day mortality and neurologic dysfunction showed no significant difference among the three groups (2.8 and 5.4% in TAR group, 1.7 and 8.5% in TEVAR group and 0 and 2.4% in STEVAR group; P = 0.500 and P = 0.297, respectively). Long-term survival was not significantly different among the three groups (78% in TAR group, 67% in TEVAR group and 81% in STEVAR group at 5 years; P = 0.123). Freedom from aortic reintervention was lower in the TEVAR group than in other groups (98% in TAR, 92% in TEVAR and 97% in STEVAR at 5 years, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: Operative outcomes showed no significant differences between the groups except for early recovery after TEVAR. Longterm survival was similar between groups; however, TEVAR had inferior reintervention free rate.

KW - Aortic arch aneurysm

KW - Endovascular procedures

KW - Hybrid arch repair

KW - Total arch replacement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021840112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021840112&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ejcts/ezx028

DO - 10.1093/ejcts/ezx028

M3 - Article

C2 - 28329146

AN - SCOPUS:85021840112

VL - 51

SP - 1142

EP - 1148

JO - European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery

JF - European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery

SN - 1010-7940

IS - 6

ER -