4.6 Article

Case Report: Successful endovascular treatment of acute type A aortic dissection

期刊

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1299192

关键词

aortic dissection; type A; TEVAR; endovascular; ascending aorta

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An individualized endovascular approach may be justified for acute type A aortic dissection in elderly patients with high surgical risk. The use of additional short-length stent graft devices and uncovered stent may enhance the outcomes in treating such cases.
IntroductionOpen surgical repair remains the current gold standard for the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection. However, especially elderly patients with relevant comorbidities who are deemed unfit for open surgery may benefit from a minimally invasive endovascular approach.MethodsWe report a case of an 80-year-old male with retrograde acute type A aortic dissection and peripheral malperfusion after receiving thoracic endovascular aortic repair due to thoracic aortic aneurysm. Our individualized endovascular approach consisted of left carotid-subclavian bypass, proximal extension of thoracic endovascular aortic repair using a covered stent graft and a single covered stent graft for the ascending aorta in combination with an uncovered stent for the aortic arch.ResultsPostoperative computed tomographic angiography demonstrated excellent outcome with no signs of endoleak or patent false lumen. Follow-up after 3.5 years showed a stable result with no signs of stent failure or dissection progress. No aortic re-interventions were needed in the further course.DiscussionAn individualized endovascular approach may be justified for acute type A aortic dissection in elderly patients with high surgical risk if performed in specialized aortic centers. Additional short-length stent graft devices are needed to address the anatomical challenges of the ascending aorta. For enhanced remodeling of the dissected aorta, the use of an additional uncovered stent may be advisable.

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