JTCVS open · 2023
Progression of distal aorta after endovascular fenestration/stenting in acute type A aortic dissection with malperfusion syndrome.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ahmad Rana-Armaghan, Orelaru Felix, Graham Nathan, Titsworth Marc, Monaghan Katelyn, Wu Xiaoting, Kim Karen M, Fukuhara Shinichi, Patel Himanshu, Deeb G Michael, Yang Bo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to evaluate the progression of dissected distal aorta in patients with acute type A aortic dissection with malperfusion syndrome treated with endovascular fenestration/stenting and delayed open aortic repair.
METHODS: From 1996 to 2021, 927 patients presented with acute type A aortic dissection. Of these, 534 had DeBakey I dissection with no malperfusion syndrome and underwent emergency open aortic repair (no malperfusion syndrome group), whereas 97 patients with malperfusion syndrome underwent fenestration/stenting and delayed open aortic repair (malperfusion syndrome group). Sixty-three patients with malperfusion syndrome treated with fenestration/stenting were excluded due to no open aortic repair, including death from organ failure (n = 31), death from aortic rupture (n = 16), and discharged alive (n = 16).
RESULTS: Compared with the no malperfusion syndrome group, the malperfusion syndrome group had more patients with acute renal failure (60% vs 4.3%, P < .001). Both groups had similar aortic root and arch procedures. Postoperatively, the malperfusion syndrome group had similar operative mortality (5.2% vs 7.9%, P = .35) and permanent dialysis (4.7% vs 2.9%, P = .50), but more new-onset dialysis (22% vs 7.7%, P < .001) and prolonged ventilation (72% vs 49%, P < .001). The growth rate of the aortic arch (0.38 vs 0.35 mm/year, P = .81) was similar between the malperfusion syndrome and no malperfusion syndrome groups. The descending thoracic aorta growth rate (1.03 vs 0.68 mm/year, P = .001) and abdominal aorta growth rate (0.76 vs 0.59 mm/year, P = .02) were significantly higher in the malperfusion syndrome group. The cumulative incidence of reoperation over 10 years (18% vs 18%, P = .81) and 15-year survival outcome (50% vs 48%, P = .43) were similar between the malperfusion syndrome and no malperfusion syndrome groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular fenestration/stenting followed by delayed open aortic repair was a valid approach for patients with malperfusion syndrome.
METHODS: From 1996 to 2021, 927 patients presented with acute type A aortic dissection. Of these, 534 had DeBakey I dissection with no malperfusion syndrome and underwent emergency open aortic repair (no malperfusion syndrome group), whereas 97 patients with malperfusion syndrome underwent fenestration/stenting and delayed open aortic repair (malperfusion syndrome group). Sixty-three patients with malperfusion syndrome treated with fenestration/stenting were excluded due to no open aortic repair, including death from organ failure (n = 31), death from aortic rupture (n = 16), and discharged alive (n = 16).
RESULTS: Compared with the no malperfusion syndrome group, the malperfusion syndrome group had more patients with acute renal failure (60% vs 4.3%, P < .001). Both groups had similar aortic root and arch procedures. Postoperatively, the malperfusion syndrome group had similar operative mortality (5.2% vs 7.9%, P = .35) and permanent dialysis (4.7% vs 2.9%, P = .50), but more new-onset dialysis (22% vs 7.7%, P < .001) and prolonged ventilation (72% vs 49%, P < .001). The growth rate of the aortic arch (0.38 vs 0.35 mm/year, P = .81) was similar between the malperfusion syndrome and no malperfusion syndrome groups. The descending thoracic aorta growth rate (1.03 vs 0.68 mm/year, P = .001) and abdominal aorta growth rate (0.76 vs 0.59 mm/year, P = .02) were significantly higher in the malperfusion syndrome group. The cumulative incidence of reoperation over 10 years (18% vs 18%, P = .81) and 15-year survival outcome (50% vs 48%, P = .43) were similar between the malperfusion syndrome and no malperfusion syndrome groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular fenestration/stenting followed by delayed open aortic repair was a valid approach for patients with malperfusion syndrome.