4.6 Article

Endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissection: Long-term follow-up of true and false lumen diameter changes

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 1059-1066

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.10.064

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background, The aim of this study was to determine the technical success after endovascular treatment of acute type B aortic dissections and to evaluate true and false lumen diameter changes at long-term follow-up. Methods. Twenty-eight patients with acute type B-dissection who were treated by stent graft repair presented with rupture (n = 1), contained rupture (n = 2), compromised branch vessels (n = 14), pleural effusion (n = 11), rapid aortic diameter progression (n 5), persistent pain (n = 3), refractory hypertension (n 10), and an aortic diameter of more than 4 cm (n = 4). Taking into account the perfusion status of the false lumen, diameter changes were monitored in the thoracic aorta at the level of the stented segment (L1), distal to the stent graft (1,2), and at the level of the celiac trunk (1,3). Results. Severe complications in 9 patients (32%) resulted in 3 deaths for a 30-day mortality rate of 10.7%. Primary sealing of the entry tear was achieved in 86%. At all levels, the true lumen diameter increased significantly after stent graft placement. At the 1-year follow-up, the false lumen in L1 was thrombosed in 90% and the mean difference of diameter reduction was highly significant. In L2, complete false lumen thrombosis occurred in 60% with a significant diameter decrease. In L3, the false lumen thrombosed in only 22%, and the mean difference of false lumen diameter increase reached significance at the 2-year follow-up. Conclusions. Ninety percent of patients were treated successfully with thrombosis of the false lumen in the stented segment. False lumen perfusion distal to the stent graft resulted in diameter increase in several patients leaving these segments an area of concern.

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