4.6 Article

Aortic dissection with acute malperfusion syndrome: Endovascular fenestration via the funnel technique

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 150, Issue 1, Pages 108-115

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.03.056

Keywords

aortic dissection; aortic fenestration; stent; malperfusion

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To analyze the short-and long-term results of an original aortic fenestration method using the funnel technique during aortic dissection complicated by malperfusion syndrome. Methods: The funnel technique consists of deployment of an uncovered aortic stent graft placed from the false to the right lumen through an intimal flap aortic fenestration made by balloon angioplasty. Twenty-eight patients presenting with an aortic dissection (type A, n = 19; type B, n = 9) were treated for malperfusion syndrome owing to dynamic compression (16 renal, 17 bowel, and 13 lower limb ischemia) using the aforementioned technique, and had follow-up evaluation at short term (30 days) and long term (mean: 55 +/- 40 months). Eight patients had severe ischemia on arrival (6 bowel, 7 renal, 3 lower limb). Results: Technical success was achieved in 27 of 28 patients (96%), and ischemic symptoms had disappeared in 25 of 28 patients (89%) at short-term follow up. Five patients presented postprocedure complications: 4 minor and 1 major with arterial thrombosis which caused technical failure (3.6%). The 30-day mortality rate was 7% (n = 2), related to bowel ischemia complications. At long-term follow up, 21 patients had a stable thoracic aortic diameter (91%). Conclusions: The funnel technique, in cases of malperfusion syndrome after aortic dissection, safely improves short-and long-term clinical outcome, and could represent an interesting alternative in the management of patients. The hemodynamic efficiency of this technique may account for a lower mortality in our series.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available