4.6 Article

Elective frozen elephant trunk procedure using the E-Vita Open Plus prosthesis in 94 patients: a multicentre French registry

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 733-739

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx159

关键词

Aortic arch; Frozen elephant trunk; Hybrid aortic surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our goal was to evaluate the operative outcomes of the frozen elephant trunk technique using the E-Vita Open Plus(A (R)) hybrid prosthesis in chronic aortic arch diseases and report clinical and radiological outcomes at the 1-year follow-up. As determined from a prospective multicentre registry, 94 patients underwent frozen elephant trunk procedures using the E-Vita Open Plus hybrid device for the treatment of chronic aortic conditions, including 50% chronic aortic dissections, 40% degenerative aneurysms and 10% miscellaneous indications. Fifty percent of the cases were reoperations. The perioperative mortality rate was 11.7%. Spinal cord ischaemia and stroke rates were 4% and 9.6%, respectively. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 252 +/- 97 min, cardiac ischaemia time was 152 +/- 53 min and cerebral perfusion time was 82 +/- 22 min. Concomitant procedures were observed in 15% of patients. Among the 83 surviving patients, the survival rate after the 1-year follow-up was 98%. Eleven percent of patients underwent endovascular completion, whereas 4% of patients required aortic reintervention at 1 year. The E-Vita Open Plus hybrid device confirms the favourable short- and mid-term outcomes offered by its predecessor in frozen elephant trunk procedures in patients with chronic aortic arch disease. Implantation of the E-Vita Open Plus is associated with good 1-year survival rates, good rates of favourable aortic remodelling in both chronic dissection and degenerative aneurysms and a reproducible technique in a multicentre registry. Continued follow-up is required due to the risk of evolution at the downstream aorta.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据