Outcome comparison between LSA complete reconstruction and partial coverage with endovascular technique for patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection.
10.3760/cma.j.cn112148-20220408-00250
- VernacularTitle:LSA完全重建与开口部分覆盖腔内技术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层短期预后比较
- Author:
Wen Xu PAN
1
;
De Hui QIAN
1
;
Han XIAO
1
;
Shi Lin FU
1
;
Jun JIN
1
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiology, Xinqiao Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing 400037, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Aortic Dissection/surgery*;
Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/surgery*;
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/methods*;
Endovascular Procedures/methods*;
Humans;
Retrospective Studies;
Stents;
Subclavian Artery/surgery*;
Time Factors;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Cardiology
2022;50(8):753-760
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objectives: To compare the short-term outcomes of branched stentgrafts for left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization or partial LSA coverage without reconstruction in the treatment of type B aortic dissection with proximal tear close to LSA. Methods: A total of 125 type B aortic dissection patients were treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in Xinqiao Hospital of the Army Medical University from January 2019 to March 2021. Their medical records were reviewed and the outcomes were followed up. According to the different treatment methodologies, the patients were divided into complete LSA coverage with reconstruction group (n=25) and partial LSA coverage without reconstruction group (n=100). The data of baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and incidence of postoperative in-hospital adverse events were collected and compared between the two groups. The adverse events during one-year follow-up were also compared between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test were used to compare the cumulative survival rates between groups. Results: Compared with partial LSA coverage group, distance of proximal tear to LSA((8.69±2.32)mm vs. (13.77±1.71) mm) was shorter, in-hospital expenses[175 400(166 000-189 900) yuan vs. 143 700 (138 100-151 800) yuan] was higher, average length of stent [200.00 mm vs. 150.00 (150.00-150.00) mm] and operation time [155.00 (140.00-170.00) min vs. 95.00 (80.00-100.00) min] were longer, and volumes of contrast agent [300.00 (200.00-300.00) ml vs. 200.00 (200.00-300.00) ml] (P<0.05) were higher for patients in the complete LSA coverage with reconstruction group. The incidence of post-operative fever was significantly higher in complete LSA coverage with revascularization group than that in partial LSA partial coverage with reconstruction group (56% vs. 25%, P=0.003). There was no significant difference in the incidences of all-cause death, stroke, endoleak, paraplegia, and LSA branch vessel occlusion between the two groups during follow-up. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the cumulative survival rates between the two groups (log-rank test: P=0.572 5). Conclusion: The TEVAR with complete LSA revascularization or partial LSA coverage without reconstruction for type B aortic dissection close to LSA are safe and effective with high success rates. There is no significant difference between these two techniques in short-term outcomes.
