Deployment of a novel hybrid stent for open repair of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection with malperfusion.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kelly JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11329172 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Deployment of a novel hybrid stent for open repair of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection with malperfusion.
Kelly John J JJ Grimm Joshua C JC Lawrence Kendall M KM Ibrahim Michael M Al Ghofaily Lourdes F S LFS Brown Chase R CR Desai Nimesh D ND Szeto Wilson Y WY
JTCVS techniques 20240421
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8311454 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8869625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmediate open repair of acute type A aortic dissection is traditionally recommended to prevent death from aortic rupture. However, organ failure because of malperfusion syndrome (MPS) might be the most imminent life-threatening problem for a subset of patients.MethodsFrom 1996 to 2017, among 597 patients with acute type A aortic dissection, 135 patients with MPS were treated with upfront endovascular reperfusion (fenestration/stenting) followed by delayed open repair (OR). We compared outcomes between the first and second decades and observed mortalities with those expected with an "upfront OR for every patient" approach, determined using prognostic models from the literature (Verona, Leipzig-Halifax, Stockholm, Penn, and GERAADA [German Registry for Acute Aortic Dissection Type A] models).ResultsOverall, in-hospital mortality improved between the 2 decades (21.0% versus 10.7%, P<0.001). In the second decade, for patients with MPS initially treated with fenestration/stenting, mortality from aortic rupture decreased from 16% to 4% ( P=0.05), the risk of dying from organ failure was 6.6 times higher than dying from aortic rupture (hazard ratio=6.63; 95% CI, 1.5-29; P=0.01), and 30-day mortality after OR for MPS patients was 3.7%. Compared to the expected mortalities with the upfront OR for every patient models, our observed 30-day and in-hospital mortalities (9% and 11%, respectively) of all patients with acute type A aortic dissection were significantly lower ( P≤0.03).ConclusionsImmediate OR is the strategy to prevent death from aortic rupture for the majority of patients with acute type A aortic dissection. However, relatively stable (no rupture, no tamponade) patients with MPS benefit from a staged approach: upfront endovascular reperfusion followed by aortic OR at resolution of organ failure.
| S-EPMC6339462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the outcomes of emergency revascularization with endovascular fenestration/stenting followed by delayed open aortic repair in patients with acute type A aortic dissection with lower extremity (LE) malperfusion syndrome (MPS); that is, necrosis and dysfunction of the lower extremity.MethodsFrom 1996 to 2019, among 760 consecutive acute type A aortic dissection patients 512 patients had no malperfusion syndrome (Non-MPS), whereas 26 patients had LE-MPS with/without renal MPS and underwent endovascular fenestration/stenting, open aortic repair, or both. Patients with coronary, cerebral, mesenteric, and celiac MPS, or managed with thoracic endovascular aortic repair, were excluded (n = 222). All patients with LE-MPS underwent upfront endovascular fenestration/stenting except 1 patient (with signs of rupture) who initially underwent emergency open aortic repair.ResultsAmong the LE-MPS patients, 17 (65%) had LE pain, 15 (58%) had abnormal motor function with 8 (31%) having paralysis, 10 (38%) had LE pallor, 17 (65%) had LE paresthesia, and 20 (77%) had LE pulselessness. Of the 25 patients undergoing upfront endovascular fenestration/stenting, 16 went on to open aortic repair, 3 survived to discharge without aortic repair, and 6 died before aortic repair (3-aortic rupture and 3-organ failure). In-hospital mortality among all patients was significantly higher in the LE-MPS group (31% vs 6.3%; P = .0003). Among those undergoing open aortic repair, postoperative outcomes were similar between groups, including operative mortality (18% vs 6.5%; P = .10). LE-MPS was a significant risk factor for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 6.0 [1.9, 19]; P = .002).ConclusionsIn acute type A aortic dissection, LE-MPS was associated with high in-hospital mortality. Emergency revascularization with endovascular fenestration/stenting followed by delayed open aortic repair may be a reasonable approach.
| S-EPMC9667713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe management of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) using the Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent (AMDS) can lead to complications due to the persistence of the false lumen (FL). This case report presents two instances of failed AMDS treatment for ATAAD, highlighting the novel use of a trifurcated hybrid prosthesis for redo aortic arch repair using a minimally invasive frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique.Case presentationCase 1: A 57-year-old male, previously treated with AMDS for ATAAD, presented with an enlarging aortic arch and persistent FL two years post-surgery caused by re-entry in the distal aortic arch. Redo surgery using the FET technique with an E-vita OPEN NEO Trifurcated hybrid prosthesis resulted in successful repair and partial FL thrombosis. Case 2: A 51-year-old male with prior AMDS treatment for ATAAD presented with severe aortic valve regurgitation and a maintained FL perfusion due to a residual re-entry in the proximal region of the descending aorta. Redo surgery using the FET technique with the same hybrid prosthesis led to successful repair and good recovery, confirmed by follow-up imaging.ConclusionsThe use of the E-vita OPEN NEO Trifurcated hybrid prosthesis in the FET technique offers a promising solution for redo aortic arch repair in cases of failed AMDS treatment for ATAAD. This approach can improve patient outcomes by addressing complications associated with persistent FL and enhancing long-term survival.
| S-EPMC11475210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe study objective was to determine if hemiarch replacement is an adequate arch management strategy for patients with acute type A aortic dissection and arch branch vessel dissection but no cerebral malperfusion.MethodsFrom January 2008 to August 2019, 479 patients underwent open acute type A aortic dissection repair. After excluding those with aggressive arch replacement (n = 168), cerebral malperfusion syndrome (n = 34), and indeterminable arch branch vessel dissection (n = 1), 276 patients with an acute type A aortic dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome who underwent hemiarch replacement comprised this study. Patients were then divided into those with arch branch vessel dissection (n = 133) and those with no arch branch vessel dissection (n = 143).ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 62 years, with the arch branch vessel dissection group being younger (60 vs 62 years, P = .048). Both groups had similar aortic arch and descending thoracic aortic diameters, with significantly more DeBakey type I dissections (100% vs 80%) in the arch branch vessel dissection group. The arch branch vessel dissection group had more aortic root replacement (36% vs 27%, P = .0035) and longer aortic crossclamp times (153 vs 128 minutes, P = .007). Postoperative outcomes were similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups, including stroke (10% vs 5%, P = .12) and operative morality (7% vs 5%, P = .51). The arch branch vessel dissection group had a significantly greater cumulative incidence of reoperation (8-year: 19% vs 4%, P = .04) with a hazard ratio of 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-8.27; P = .048), which was similar between groups among only DeBakey type I dissections (8-year: 19% vs 5%, P = .11). The 8-year survival was similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups (76% vs 74%, P = .30).ConclusionsHemiarch replacement was adequate for patients with acute type A aortic dissection with arch branch vessel dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome, but carried a higher risk of late reoperation.
| S-EPMC7935741 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10898741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) in the presence of an existing aortic endograft is a rare, but potentially catastrophic, event. False lumen pressurization and propagation leads to several failure modes. Endograft collapse can lead to spinal cord, visceral, or lower extremity ischemia, and rupture of a previously sealed aneurysm sac is often fatal. A successful treatment strategy must incorporate the patient's symptoms, urgency of intervention, extent of dissection, and the location and status of the existing graft. In this series, we present three cases of TBAD complicating prior endovascular aortic repairs-infrarenal, iliac branched, and thoracoabdominal branched endografts-successfully treated with tailored, hybrid interventions.
| S-EPMC10238611 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTotal arch replacement (TAR) and/or stent graft implantation has been proposed as the primary surgical treatment for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection. However, the suggestion was based on excellent outcomes of high-volume or aortic centers. How about the real results in most places around the world? The purpose of this study was intended to compared in-hospital mortality, major complications, and aortic remodeling between TAR and/or stent graft implantation in a medical center of northern Taiwan.MethodsBetween January 2008 and August 2017, 156 patients with acute type I aortic dissection underwent surgery at our institution, including proximal aortic replacement only (Group I, n = 72), concomitant TAR (Group II, n = 23), concomitant TAR extended with stent grafting (Group III, n = 45), and proximal aortic replacement with descending aortic stent grafting (Group IV, n = 16).ResultsNo significant differences were found in underlying disease and preoperative presentations, including operative risk among four groups. Overall in-hospital mortality was 22.4% (13 patients in Group I, 9 in Group II, 12 in Group III, and 1 in Group IV). New-onset stroke occurred in 15 patients postoperatively (3 patients [5.2%] in Group I, 3 [21.4%] in Group II, and 9 [26.5%] in Group III after excluding 36 patients with documented preoperative cerebrovascular accident or cerebral malperfusion). Root reconstruction and TAR were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. TAR was significantly associated with surgery-related stroke. Compared to those in Group I, true lumen expansion and false lumen shrinkage during 1-year aortic remodeling were significantly higher in Groups III and IV. Both TAR and descending aorta stent grafting were significantly associated with decreased risk of patent false lumen.ConclusionsProximal aortic replacement remains the preferred surgical strategy for acute type I aortic dissection, with lower mortality and neurological complications. Proximal descending aorta stent grafting may benefit aortic remodeling, even without TAR.
| S-EPMC6319728 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Malperfusion syndrome is a complication of acute aortic dissection (AAD) involving a branch vessel. We report a case of bailout stenting for critical cerebral malperfusion in a patient with AAD after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Rescue percutaneous procedure for this complication may be a treatment option in patients with high surgical risk. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).
| S-EPMC8571793 | biostudies-literature