2022 年 28 巻 3 号 p. 193-203
Purpose: To compare open versus endovascular left subclavian artery debranching for thoracic endovascular aortic repair of thoracic aortic pathologies.
Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients receiving left subclavian artery debranching in our institution from October 2009 to January 2020. The primary outcome was freedom from aortic reintervention. Secondary outcomes were type I endoleaks, left subclavian artery (LSA) debranching failure, stroke, technical or clinical success, procedure-related reintervention, as well as 30-day or overall all-cause and aorta-related mortality.
Results: Forty-eight patients received parallel graft-based (n = 24, ENDO; median age 75 years [70–80 years]) or open (n = 24, OPEN; median age 71 years [59–75 years]) debranching for type B aortic dissection (n = 25), degenerative aneurysm (n = 12), type IA endoleak (n = 6), suture-associated (n = 3) or ostial LSA aneurysm (n = 1), or penetrating aortic ulcer (n = 1). The median follow-up was 36 months (13–61 months). After 16 months, aortic reintervention-free survival in groups OPEN and ENDO was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79 to 100%) and 86% (73 to 100%) (p = 0.71), respectively. After 36 months, all-cause survival in groups OPEN and ENDO was 74% (95% CI: 55 to 99%) and 79% (95% CI: 64 to 97%) (p = 0.74), respectively; freedom from aorta-related mortality was 81% (95% CI: 62 to 100%) and 91% (95% CI: 80 to 100%) (p = 0.78), respectively. Group OPEN presented less type I endoleaks (OPEN/ENDO = 3/19, p <0.001) and higher technical (OPEN/ENDO = 81/36%, p = 0.003) and clinical success rates (OPEN/ENDO = 67/36%, p = 0.047). No statistical differences were found for other outcomes.
Conclusion: Both strategies achieved comparable reintervention and mortality rates, but open debranching should be preferred due to its higher technical and clinical success and less type I endoleaks.
