4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Endovascular treatment of chronic aortic dissection with fenestrated and branched stent grafts

期刊

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY
卷 73, 期 5, 页码 1573-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.10.004

关键词

Chronic dissection; Endovascular repair; Arch repair; Fenestrated branched stent grafts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reported short- and midterm outcomes of chronic aortic dissection patients treated with F/B-EVAR at a vascular center. The procedures had high success rates but some complications and reinterventions occurred.
Objective: Chronic aortic dissection with aneurysm development that includes the aortic arch and/or thoracoabdominal aorta (TAAA) is traditionally treated with open or hybrid surgery. Total endovascular treatment with fenestrated and branched aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) has recently been introduced as a less invasive alternative. The aim was to report the short- and midterm outcomes from a single tertiary vascular center. Methods: All patients with chronic aortic dissection treated with F/B-EVAR from 2010 to 2019 at Uppsala University Hospital were identified. Perioperative and postoperative parameters were analyzed, with focus on short- (<30 days) and midterm survival, complication, and reintervention rates. Results: F/B-EVAR was performed on 26 patients (median age, 63 years; range, 33-87 years; 18 men; median aortic diameter, 70 mm; range, 50-98 mm); with a median follow-up of 23 months (range, 0.5-118.0 months). One patient underwent both arch and TAAA repair. Overall, 13 arch repairs (arch group) after type A (n = 8) and type B (n = 5) dissection (all elective) were performed, and 14 TAAA repairs (TAAA group) after type A (n = 5) and type B (n = 9) dissection (one rupture). A total of 72 aortic branches were targeted (22 arch, 50 TAAA). Short-term technical success was achieved in 24 of 27 procedures (89%). Failures were related to one intraoperative retrograde type A dissection (RTAD) requiring open conversion (arch group), one persistent type IC endoleak on completion angiography (arch group), and one persistent type III endoleak (TAAA group). Mortality was 4% (n = 1) at 30 days and related to a second RTAD that occurred after discharge and was found on autopsy. Both RTADs occurred in patients with chronic type B dissection undergoing fenestrated arch repair. Paraplegia occurred in three cases (two arch, one TAAA) (11%), none permanent, and stroke in three cases (one arch, one TAAA) (11%); one was permanent. In the midterm, endoleaks were detected in 12 patients (44%); persistent false lumen flow (n = 3), type IB (n = 1), type IC (n = 3), type II (n = 7), and type IIIC (n = 2). The 3-year survival (Kaplan-Meier) of the arch repair was 75% and for the TAAA, 93%. Freedom from reintervention at 3 years were 100% for arch repairs and 48% for TAAA. In patients with a follow-up of more than 6 months (n = 23), all had stable or decreased aortic diameters and complete false lumen thrombosis at the level of stent graft was present in 65% (n = 15). Conclusions: Endovascular treatment of postdissection aneurysms is feasible, with acceptable short-term and midterm outcomes. RTAD after fenestrated and branched endovascular arch repair warrants caution when performed on patients with native ascending aortas, and reinterventions are frequent in TAAA repair.

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

4.5
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