{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0511727078891258, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0453091684434968, 'mean_word_length': 4.347578347578348, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 6, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Early and mid-term outcomes of endovascular and open surgical repair of non-dissected aortic arch aneurysm†.

OBJECTIVES
With the introduction of endovascular stent graft technology, a variety of surgical options are available for patients with aortic aneurysms. We sought to evaluate early-term and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing endovascular and open surgical repair for non-dissected aortic arch aneurysm.


METHODS
Overall, 200 patients underwent treatment for isolated non-dissected aortic arch aneurysm between January 2008 and February 2016: 133 patients had open surgery and 67, endovascular repair. Early-term and mid-term outcomes were compared.


RESULTS
Seventy percent ( n  = 47) needing endovascular repair underwent fenestrated stent graft and 30% ( n  = 20) underwent the debranched technique. Patients in the open surgery group were younger (71 vs 75 years, P  < 0.001) and had a lower prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (11% vs 35%, P  < 0.001). Intensive care unit stay (1 vs 3 days, P  < 0.001), hospital stay (11 vs 17 days, P  < 0.001) and surgical time (208 vs 390 min, P  < 0.001) were lower in the endovascular repair group than in the open surgery group. There were 3 in-hospital deaths each in the open surgery and endovascular groups (2% vs 5%, respectively, P  = 0.40). Mid-term survival ( P  < 0.001) and freedom from reintervention ( P  = 0.009) were better in the open surgery than in the endovascular repair group. No aneurysm-related deaths were observed. The propensity-matched comparison ( n  = 58) demonstrated that survival was better in the open surgery group ( P  = 0.011); no significant difference was seen in the reintervention rate ( P  = 0.28).


CONCLUSIONS
Close follow-up for re-intervention may reduce the risk for aneurysm-related deaths and provide acceptable outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular repair.