Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 5, 2026
Novel and Innovative Hybrid Technique for Type A Aortic Dissection
Published on: March 28, 2025
Comparison of aortic arch repair using the endovascular technique, total arch replacement and staged surgery†
Akihiro Yoshitake1, Kazuma Okamoto1, Masataka Yamazaki1
1Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
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. Long-term survival was similar between groups; however, TEVAR had inferior reintervention free rate.
