Literature DB >> 28655150

Is the frozen elephant trunk procedure superior to the conventional elephant trunk procedure for completion of the second stage?

Saad Rustum1, Erik Beckmann1, Mathias Wilhelmi1, Heike Krueger1, Tim Kaufeld1, Julia Umminger1, Axel Haverich1, Andreas Martens1, Malakh Shrestha1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to compare the results and outcomes of second-stage completion in patients who had previously undergone the elephant trunk (ET) or the frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure for the treatment of complex aortic arch and descending aortic disease.
METHODS: Between August 2001 and December 2014, 53 patients [mean age 61 ± 13 years, 64% (n = 34) male] underwent a second-stage completion procedure. Of these patients, 32% (n = 17) had a previous ET procedure and 68% (n = 36) a previous FET procedure as a first-stage procedure.
RESULTS: The median times to the second-stage procedure were 7 (0-78) months in the ET group and 8 (0-66) months in the FET group. The second-stage procedure included thoracic endovascular aortic repair in 53% (n = 28) of patients and open surgical repair in 47% (n = 25). More endovascular interventions were performed in FET patients (61%, n = 22) than in the ET group (35%, n = 6, P = 0.117). The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower in the FET (8%, n = 3) group compared with the ET group (29%, n = 5, P = 0.045). The median follow-up time after the second-stage operation for the entire cohort was 4.6 (0.4-10.4) years. The 5-year survival rate was 76% in the ET patients versus 89% in the FET patients (log-rank: P = 0.11).
CONCLUSIONS: We observed a significantly lower in-hospital mortality rate in the FET group compared to the ET group. This result might be explained by the higher rate of endovascular completion in the FET group. We assume that the FET procedure offers the benefit of a more ideal landing zone, thus facilitating endovascular completion.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic arch replacement; Frozen elephant trunk; Second-stage aortic repair

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28655150     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx199

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  4 in total

Review 1.  Is the classical elephant trunk better than the frozen elephant trunk?

Authors:  Marc Schepens; Willem Ranschaert; Wim Vergauwen; Eric Graulus; Marie De Vos
Journal:  Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2021-02-02

2.  Total aortic arch replacement using elephant trunk or frozen elephant trunk technique: a case-control matching study.

Authors:  Sabreen Mkalaluh; Marcin Szczechowicz; Ahmed Mashhour; Konstantin Zhigalov; Jerry Easo; Harald Christian Eichstaedt; Jürgen Ennker; Rohit Philip Thomas; Ajay Chavan; Alexander Weymann
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Open total arch replacement with trifurcated graft and frozen elephant trunk.

Authors:  Erik Beckmann; Andreas Martens; Wilhelm Korte; Tim Kaufeld; Heike Krueger; Axel Haverich; Malakh Shrestha
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-05

Review 4.  The great vessel freeze-out: A meta-analysis of conventional versus frozen elephant trunks in aortic arch surgery.

Authors:  Nicholas A Vernice; Matthew E Wingo; Paul B Walker; Michelle Demetres; Lily N Stalter; Qiuyu Yang; Andreas R de Biasi
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2022-05-08       Impact factor: 1.778

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.