OBJECTIVE: The disease of the aortic arch is traditionally approached by open surgical repair requiring cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. This study performed a retrospective analysis comparing outcomes through primary hybrid patients submitted to aortic arch surgery without cardiopulmonary bypass with patients submitted to conventional open surgery. METHODS: 25 patients submitted to the aortic arch surgery were selected in the period 2003-2012 at the Madre Teresa Hospital in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil; 13 of these underwent hybrid technique without cardiopulmonary bypass and 12 underwent conventional open surgery. RESULTS: The mortality rate for the hybrid group was 23% and for the conventional surgery group was 17% (P=0.248). The postoperative complication rate was also similar in both groups, with no significant difference. CONCLUSION: Both techniques proved to be similar in mortality and morbidity. However, due to the small sample, more analytical studies with larger samples and long-term follow-up are needed to clarify this issue.
OBJECTIVE: The disease of the aortic arch is traditionally approached by open surgical repair requiring cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. This study performed a retrospective analysis comparing outcomes through primary hybrid patients submitted to aortic arch surgery without cardiopulmonary bypass with patients submitted to conventional open surgery. METHODS: 25 patients submitted to the aortic arch surgery were selected in the period 2003-2012 at the Madre Teresa Hospital in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil; 13 of these underwent hybrid technique without cardiopulmonary bypass and 12 underwent conventional open surgery. RESULTS: The mortality rate for the hybrid group was 23% and for the conventional surgery group was 17% (P=0.248). The postoperative complication rate was also similar in both groups, with no significant difference. CONCLUSION: Both techniques proved to be similar in mortality and morbidity. However, due to the small sample, more analytical studies with larger samples and long-term follow-up are needed to clarify this issue.
Authors: G Melissano; E Civilini; L Bertoglio; F Calliari; F Setacci; G Calori; R Chiesa Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2007-01-03 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Wilson Y Szeto; Joseph E Bavaria; Frank W Bowen; Edward Y Woo; Ronald M Fairman; Alberto Pochettino Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.620
Authors: Roy K Greenberg; Qingsheng Lu; Eric E Roselli; Lars G Svensson; Michael C Moon; Adrian V Hernandez; Joseph Dowdall; Marcelo Cury; Catherine Francis; Kathryn Pfaff; Daniel G Clair; Kenneth Ouriel; Bruce W Lytle Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-08-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: O E Dapunt; J D Galla; A M Sadeghi; S L Lansman; C K Mezrow; R A de Asla; C Quintana; S Wallenstein; A M Ergin; R B Griepp Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: L K Bickerstaff; P C Pairolero; L H Hollier; L J Melton; H J Van Peenen; K J Cherry; J W Joyce; J T Lie Journal: Surgery Date: 1982-12 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Konstantinos G Moulakakis; Spyridon N Mylonas; Fotis Markatis; Thomas Kotsis; John Kakisis; Christos D Liapis Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2013-05
Authors: Nikolaos C Schizas; Aikaterini P Dedeilia; Ilias Samiotis; Theodoros Kratimenos; Nikolaos G Baikoussis; Panagiotis G Dedeilias Journal: Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2021-03-19