4.6 Article

Prognostic factors for aorta remodeling after thoracic endovascular aortic repair of complicated chronic DeBakey IIIb aneurysms

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 148, Issue 3, Pages 925-932

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.05.040

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for chronic DeBakey III type b (CDIIIb) aneurysms is controversial. We analyzed the potential prognostic factors affecting aorta remodeling after this procedure. Methods: A total of 20 patients with CDIIIb aneurysms underwent TEVAR, with full coverage of reentry tears at the descending thoracic aorta. The potential factors affecting false lumen (FL) remodeling were analyzed, including reentry tears (communicating channels visible on the computed tomography angiogram), large intimal tears below the stent graft (>= 2 consecutive axial cuts on the computed tomography angiogram), visceral branches arising from the FL, and intercostal arteries (ICAs) arising from the FL. Results: All the patients had uneventful in-hospital courses; 2 patients (10%) required reintervention during the follow-up period. Thirteen patients (65%) had complete thrombosis of the FL at stent graft segment. Compared with the complete thrombosis group, the partial thrombosis group had more reentry tears (1.8 vs 2.3, P = .48), large intimal tears (0.8 vs 1.7, P < .05), visceral branches arising from the FL (1.2 vs 2.3, P < .05), and ICAs arising from the FL (3.8 vs 5.1, P = .35). Reentry tears, visceral branches, and ICAs from the FL were significant negative prognostic factors for FL shrinkage (P < .05). Conclusions: Although reentry tears above the celiac trunk were fully covered, the visceral branches and ICAs from the FL and all communicating channels below the celiac trunk kept the FL pressurized and were unfavorable prognostic factors for aorta remodeling after TEVAR for CDIIIb aneurysms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available