Comparison of hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair for proximal aortic arch diseases

Woong Chol Kang, Young Guk Ko, Eak Kyun Shin, Chul Hyun Park, Donghoon Choi, Young Nam Youn, Do Yun Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background To compare the outcomes of hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair for proximal aortic arch diseases. Methods A total of 55 consecutive patients with aortic arch aneurysm or aortic dissection involving any of zone 0 to 1 (39 male, age 63.4 ± 14.3 years) underwent a hybrid endovascular repair (n = 35) or open surgical repair (n = 20) from 2006 to 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Perioperative and late outcomes were compared. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except age and EuroSCORE II, which were higher in the hybrid group. Perioperative mortality or stroke was not significantly different between the two groups, however, tended to be lower in the hybrid repair group than in the open repair group (11.4% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.144). Incidences of other morbidities did not differ. During follow-up, over-all survival was similar between the hybrid and the open repair was similar (87.3% vs. 79.7% at 1 year and 83.8% vs. 72.4% at 3 years; p = 0.319). However, reintervention-free survival was significantly lower for hybrid repair compared with open repair (83.8% vs. 100% at 1 year and 65.7% vs. 100% at 3 years; p = 0.022). Conclusions Hybrid repair of proximal aortic disease showed comparable perioperative and late outcomes compared with open surgical repair despite a higher reintervention rate during follow-up. Therefore, hybrid repair may be considered as an acceptable treatment alternative to surgery especially in patients at high surgical risk.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)975-979
Number of pages5
JournalInternational Journal of Cardiology
Volume203
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Jan 15

Fingerprint

Aortic Diseases
Thoracic Aorta
Survival
Aortic Aneurysm
Dissection
Age Groups
Stroke
Morbidity
Mortality
Incidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Kang, Woong Chol ; Ko, Young Guk ; Shin, Eak Kyun ; Park, Chul Hyun ; Choi, Donghoon ; Youn, Young Nam ; Lee, Do Yun. / Comparison of hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair for proximal aortic arch diseases. In: International Journal of Cardiology. 2016 ; Vol. 203. pp. 975-979.
@article{fb9699d17ff34370b142859f4a8b874c,
title = "Comparison of hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair for proximal aortic arch diseases",
abstract = "Background To compare the outcomes of hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair for proximal aortic arch diseases. Methods A total of 55 consecutive patients with aortic arch aneurysm or aortic dissection involving any of zone 0 to 1 (39 male, age 63.4 ± 14.3 years) underwent a hybrid endovascular repair (n = 35) or open surgical repair (n = 20) from 2006 to 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Perioperative and late outcomes were compared. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except age and EuroSCORE II, which were higher in the hybrid group. Perioperative mortality or stroke was not significantly different between the two groups, however, tended to be lower in the hybrid repair group than in the open repair group (11.4{\%} vs. 30.0{\%}, p = 0.144). Incidences of other morbidities did not differ. During follow-up, over-all survival was similar between the hybrid and the open repair was similar (87.3{\%} vs. 79.7{\%} at 1 year and 83.8{\%} vs. 72.4{\%} at 3 years; p = 0.319). However, reintervention-free survival was significantly lower for hybrid repair compared with open repair (83.8{\%} vs. 100{\%} at 1 year and 65.7{\%} vs. 100{\%} at 3 years; p = 0.022). Conclusions Hybrid repair of proximal aortic disease showed comparable perioperative and late outcomes compared with open surgical repair despite a higher reintervention rate during follow-up. Therefore, hybrid repair may be considered as an acceptable treatment alternative to surgery especially in patients at high surgical risk.",
author = "Kang, {Woong Chol} and Ko, {Young Guk} and Shin, {Eak Kyun} and Park, {Chul Hyun} and Donghoon Choi and Youn, {Young Nam} and Lee, {Do Yun}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.11.093",
language = "English",
volume = "203",
pages = "975--979",
journal = "International Journal of Cardiology",
issn = "0167-5273",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Comparison of hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair for proximal aortic arch diseases. / Kang, Woong Chol; Ko, Young Guk; Shin, Eak Kyun; Park, Chul Hyun; Choi, Donghoon; Youn, Young Nam; Lee, Do Yun.

In: International Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 203, 15.01.2016, p. 975-979.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair for proximal aortic arch diseases

AU - Kang, Woong Chol

AU - Ko, Young Guk

AU - Shin, Eak Kyun

AU - Park, Chul Hyun

AU - Choi, Donghoon

AU - Youn, Young Nam

AU - Lee, Do Yun

PY - 2016/1/15

Y1 - 2016/1/15

N2 - Background To compare the outcomes of hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair for proximal aortic arch diseases. Methods A total of 55 consecutive patients with aortic arch aneurysm or aortic dissection involving any of zone 0 to 1 (39 male, age 63.4 ± 14.3 years) underwent a hybrid endovascular repair (n = 35) or open surgical repair (n = 20) from 2006 to 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Perioperative and late outcomes were compared. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except age and EuroSCORE II, which were higher in the hybrid group. Perioperative mortality or stroke was not significantly different between the two groups, however, tended to be lower in the hybrid repair group than in the open repair group (11.4% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.144). Incidences of other morbidities did not differ. During follow-up, over-all survival was similar between the hybrid and the open repair was similar (87.3% vs. 79.7% at 1 year and 83.8% vs. 72.4% at 3 years; p = 0.319). However, reintervention-free survival was significantly lower for hybrid repair compared with open repair (83.8% vs. 100% at 1 year and 65.7% vs. 100% at 3 years; p = 0.022). Conclusions Hybrid repair of proximal aortic disease showed comparable perioperative and late outcomes compared with open surgical repair despite a higher reintervention rate during follow-up. Therefore, hybrid repair may be considered as an acceptable treatment alternative to surgery especially in patients at high surgical risk.

AB - Background To compare the outcomes of hybrid endovascular and open surgical repair for proximal aortic arch diseases. Methods A total of 55 consecutive patients with aortic arch aneurysm or aortic dissection involving any of zone 0 to 1 (39 male, age 63.4 ± 14.3 years) underwent a hybrid endovascular repair (n = 35) or open surgical repair (n = 20) from 2006 to 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. Perioperative and late outcomes were compared. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except age and EuroSCORE II, which were higher in the hybrid group. Perioperative mortality or stroke was not significantly different between the two groups, however, tended to be lower in the hybrid repair group than in the open repair group (11.4% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.144). Incidences of other morbidities did not differ. During follow-up, over-all survival was similar between the hybrid and the open repair was similar (87.3% vs. 79.7% at 1 year and 83.8% vs. 72.4% at 3 years; p = 0.319). However, reintervention-free survival was significantly lower for hybrid repair compared with open repair (83.8% vs. 100% at 1 year and 65.7% vs. 100% at 3 years; p = 0.022). Conclusions Hybrid repair of proximal aortic disease showed comparable perioperative and late outcomes compared with open surgical repair despite a higher reintervention rate during follow-up. Therefore, hybrid repair may be considered as an acceptable treatment alternative to surgery especially in patients at high surgical risk.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952673726&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952673726&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.11.093

DO - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.11.093

M3 - Article

VL - 203

SP - 975

EP - 979

JO - International Journal of Cardiology

JF - International Journal of Cardiology

SN - 0167-5273

ER -