4.4 Article

Chronic thoracoabdominal aortic dissection: endovascular options to obliterate the false lumen

Journal

ANNALS OF CARDIOTHORACIC SURGERY
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages 778-783

Publisher

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/acs-2021-taes-23

Keywords

Aortic dissection; endovascular; false lumen; embolization; aneurysm

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used false lumen embolization technique to treat chronic aortic dissection, showing no mortality, stroke, spinal cord ischemia, visceral or limb ischemia after the procedure.
Background: Persistent false lumen patency in chronic thoracoabdominal aortic dissections after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) contributes to negative aortic remodeling. We have previously described the evolution of various endovascular techniques to treat persistent false lumen perfusion including false lumen embolization. Objectives of this study are to describe endovascular techniques to obliterate the false lumen and present updated outcomes in a recent series of patients undergoing false lumen embolization for chronic aortic dissection. Methods: From January 2018 to May 2021, 17 patients with chronic dissection underwent false lumen embolization with coils, iliac plugs, and nitinol plugs. This was often in conjunction with or following TEVAR and balloon fracture fenestration. Mean follow-up 354 +/- 324 days. Results: After false lumen embolization there was no mortality, stroke, spinal cord ischemia, or visceral and limb ischemia. No patients required dialysis, though 1 (5.9%) did experience acute kidney injury. There was 1 (5.9%) patient that required endovascular re-intervention on the thoracoabdominal aorta. No patients underwent subsequent open surgical repair. Conclusions: TEVAR with adjunctive false lumen embolization and balloon fracture fenestration are techniques to obliterate retrograde flow into the false lumen of chronic thoracoabdominal aortic dissections in selected

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available