Abstract
It is unclear at present whether conventional open repair or a hybrid technique is preferential in the treatment of aortic arch diseases. Our intent was to compare early and long-term outcomes of both therapeutic strategies. Between January 2002 and December 2017, 238 patients eligible for total arch replacement (TAR; 174) or hybrid arch repair (HAR; 64) qualified for study. A retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes was undertaken, with propensity matching (48 pairs). Mean follow-up duration was 60.2 months. In-hospital mortality rates were 4.6% (8 of 174 patients) and 6.3% (4 of 64 patients) in the TAR and HAR groups, respectively (p= 0.739). The TAR group displayed a lower incidence of permanent stroke (2.9%, 5 of 174 patients) by comparison (HAR: 12.5%, 8 of 64 patients; p= 0.004). Overall survival rates at 5 and 10 years differed significantly by group (TAR: 87.0% ± 5.5% and 81.9% ± 4.8%, respectively; HAR: 69.5% ± 7.4% and 40.8% ± 11.1%, respectively; p= 0.003). After propensity matching, in-hospital mortality (4.2% versus 4.2%, p > 0.99) and patient morbidities showed no statistically significant group differences. For patients undergoing HAR, a tendency for permanent stroke (14.5% versus 2.1%, p= 0.070) was evident. In the TAR (versus HAR) group, 10-year overall survival (74.7% versus 42.6%, p= 0.043) and reintervention-free (93.2% versus 34.0%, p < 0.001) rates were significantly better. In the treatment of aortic arch diseases, HAR showed equivalent short-term outcomes compared with TAR but was limited regarding long-term outcomes beyond 5 years after the procedure. Conventional TAR remains the gold standard of therapy, and our findings suggest that the hybrid approach should be reserved for strictly selected patients with significant comorbidities.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have