Iba Yutaka, Minatoya Kenji, Matsuda Hitoshi, Sasaki Hiroaki, Tanaka Hiroshi, Oda Tatsuya, Kobayashi Junjiro
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014 Jul;46(1):32-9. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt615. Epub 2014 Jan 14.
Recent advances in endovascular aortic repair have changed the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms. The purpose of this study was to compare the early and mid-term outcomes of open repair and hybrid arch repair for aortic arch aneurysms.
This study included 143 and 50 patients who underwent open aortic repair and hybrid thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), respectively, for non-dissecting aortic arch aneurysms from 2008 to 2013. The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II scores were 4.35 ± 3.65% and 7.78 ± 5.49% for the open and hybrid TEVAR groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 35 patients from each group were matched using propensity scores to adjust for differences in patient characteristics.
There was no significant difference in early mortality between the open and hybrid groups (3 vs 2%, P = 0.76). Early morbidity was equivalent in both groups, but intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay were shorter in members of the hybrid group (4.7 vs 1.6 days, P = 0.018). During the follow-up, survival rates were not significantly different (87 vs 81% at 3 years, P = 0.13), but reinterventions for the aortic arch were required in 1 patient (pseudoaneurysm) in the open group and 5 (endoleak in 4, brachiocephalic artery stenosis in 1) in the hybrid group. The rates of freedom from reintervention at 3 years were 99% in the open group and 80% in the hybrid group (P < 0.001). Propensity score matching yielded similar results for shorter ICU and hospital lengths of stay and more frequent reintervention in the hybrid group.
Surgical outcomes in both groups were satisfactory. Hybrid TEVAR was superior in terms of early recovery from surgery; however, open arch repair showed more reliable long-term outcomes. When properly selected according to patient risk, these two strategies improve the surgical results in all patients with aortic arch aneurysms.
血管腔内主动脉修复术的最新进展改变了主动脉弓部动脉瘤的治疗方式。本研究旨在比较主动脉弓部动脉瘤开放修复术与杂交弓部修复术的早期和中期疗效。
本研究纳入了2008年至2013年间分别接受开放性主动脉修复术和杂交胸主动脉腔内修复术(TEVAR)治疗非夹层主动脉弓部动脉瘤的143例和50例患者。开放性手术组和杂交TEVAR组的欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统II评分分别为4.35±3.65%和7.78±5.49%(P<0.001)。此外,每组35例患者采用倾向评分进行匹配,以调整患者特征差异。
开放性手术组和杂交手术组的早期死亡率无显著差异(3%对2%,P = 0.76)。两组的早期发病率相当,但杂交手术组患者在重症监护病房(ICU)的住院时间较短(4.7天对1.6天,P = 0.018)。随访期间,生存率无显著差异(3年时分别为87%和81%,P = 0.13),但开放性手术组有1例患者(假性动脉瘤)需要对主动脉弓进行再次干预,杂交手术组有5例(4例内漏,1例头臂动脉狭窄)。3年时无需再次干预的比例,开放性手术组为99%,杂交手术组为80%(P<0.001)。倾向评分匹配得出了相似的结果,即杂交手术组ICU和住院时间更短,再次干预更频繁。
两组的手术效果均令人满意。杂交TEVAR在术后早期恢复方面更具优势;然而,开放性主动脉弓修复术显示出更可靠的长期疗效。根据患者风险进行恰当选择时,这两种策略均可改善所有主动脉弓部动脉瘤患者的手术效果。