Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes Following Endovascular and Hybrid Repair of Aortic Arch Aneurysms

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endovascular and hybrid treatment approaches in patients with aortic arch aneurysms. Materials and Methods. This retrospective study included 68 male and female patients with a confirmed diagnosis of either an aortic arch aneurysm or a descending thoracic aortic aneurysm with a short proximal landing zone (<1.5 cm) who underwent either hybrid or endovascular treatment at the Department of Vascular Surgery between January 2017 and December 2024. Study outcomes included a composite measure of technical success, a composite measure of in-hospital clinical success, and a composite measure of long-term treatment outcomes, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic-related mortality. Results. All 68 patients were divided into two groups: Group I comprised patients who underwent endovascular treatment, whereas Group II included patients who underwent hybrid surgical treatment. The groups were comparable with regard to demographic and anatomical characteristics, clinical presentation, and comorbidities. The composite technical success rate (defined as successful target stent-graft deployment without conversion to open surgery and absence of type I or type III endoleaks) was comparable between the groups at the intraoperative stage (p = 1.000). The composite measure of in-hospital clinical success was achieved in 33 patients (94%) in Group I and 22 patients (67%) in Group II and was significantly higher in the endovascular group (adjusted p = 0.005). This difference was primarily attributable to a higher incidence of complications in the hybrid treatment group, including stroke (9%) and peripheral nerve injury (9%), associated with the open surgical component of the procedure. The mean follow-up duration was shorter in Group I (19.3 ± 10.4 months) than in Group II (63.9 ± 29.5 months), reflecting the fact that most patients in Group I underwent treatment during the later years of the study period. Although a difference in the composite long-term outcome measure was observed before adjustment (p = 0.031), this finding did not remain statistically significant after correction for multiple testing (adjusted p = 1.000). Conclusions. In this preliminary single-centre study, endovascular and hybrid approaches showed comparable technical efficacy in the early postoperative period. However, hybrid surgical treatment was associated with a less favourable safety profile during the early postoperative period, as reflected by the significantly lower in-hospital composite clinical success rate and longer hospital stay than in the endovascular group. These findings remained robust after correction for multiple testing. Long-term results should be interpreted with caution and require confirmation in larger prospective studies with longer and balanced follow-up periods.