Arch debranching versus XXXX trunk procedures for hybrid repair of thoracic aortic pathologies.

@entity1 @entity64 @entity18930 @entity7105 @entity2759 @entity1167
BACKGROUND: We compared outcomes of @entity18930 ( @entity18930 ) and @entity7105 trunk (ET) techniques when used with thoracic endovascular aortic repair. METHODS: A review was performed of consecutive @entity1 with proximal thoracic aortic pathologies repaired with a hybrid approach. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2009, 58 @entity1 underwent first-stage ET (n = 21) or @entity18930 (n = 37). Cardiopulmonary bypass was utilized in 100% of ET procedures and 68% of @entity18930 procedures (p < 0.01). @entity1167 was used in 86% of ET and 27% of @entity18930 cases (p < 0.01). The second stage was completed in 76% of ET and 76% of @entity18930 @entity1 . Rates of @entity2759 (ET 0 of 21, @entity18930 0 of 37, p = 1.0), @entity64 (ET 2 of 21, @entity18930 4 of 37, p = 1.0), and 30-day mortality (ET 4 of 21, @entity18930 6 of 37, p = 1.0) were similar. Each group had one major aortic complication between the two stages. Type Ia endovascular leak at 1 and 12 months occurred in 13% ET @entity1 and 4% @entity18930 @entity1 at 1 month (p = 0.54) and in 0% ET @entity1 and 4% @entity18930 @entity1 at 12 months (p = 1.0). Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1 and 12 months were 90.5%    6.4% and 73.1%    10% in the ET group, and 86.5%    5.6 and 71.6%    8.5 in the @entity18930 group, respectively (p = 0.68). The risk of a secondary procedure at 1 and 12 months was 76.2%    9.3% and 58.7%    12% in the ET group, and 71.0%    7.8% and 52.8%    10% in the @entity18930 group, respectively (p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Arch debranching achieves equivalent results to standard @entity7105 trunk repair but with a decreased need for cardiopulmonary bypass and @entity1167 .
