Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Mid‐term efficacy of castor stent and in situ fenestration stent in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery: A retrospective single‐center study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Mid‐term efficacy of castor stent and in situ fenestration stent in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery: A retrospective single‐center study
Do you wish to request the book?
Mid‐term efficacy of castor stent and in situ fenestration stent in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery: A retrospective single‐center study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Mid‐term efficacy of castor stent and in situ fenestration stent in the treatment of type B aortic dissection involving the left subclavian artery: A retrospective single‐center study
2024
Overview
To evaluate the midterm efficacy of the Castor stent (CS) versus in situ fenestration (ISF) for reconstructing the left subclavian artery (LSA) in patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Between July 2017 and July 2022, a total of 247 patients with TBAD were enrolled. One hundred thirty‐seven patients were treated using CSs (group A), while the remaining 110 patients received ISFs (group B). Data of the two groups were retrospectively analyzed. The success rates of surgery were 99.3% and 95.5% in groups A and B (p = .053), There were no deaths during hospitalization. During surgery, group B showed a longer surgical duration [68.0 (66.0, 77.0) vs. 62.0 (59.0, 66.0) min, p < .001] and intraoperative fluoroscopy time [18.0 (16.0, 20.0) vs. 16.0 (14.0, 18.0) min, p < .001] than group A. The follow‐up duration was similar for both groups (44.0 vs. 43.0 months, p = .877), and no patient died. Stent‐related complications were significantly lower in group A than in group B (1.5% vs. 8.4%, p = .009). Group A had fewer instances entry flow (0.7% vs. 4.7%, p = .048) and stent stenosis (0.7% vs. 2.8%, p = .206) than group B. All reintervention cases (4.7%) were from group B (p = .011). The rate of false aortic lumen thrombosis was significantly higher in group A than in group B (84.6% vs. 72.9%, p = .024). Both CSs and ISFs are evidently safe, feasible, and effective in achieving positive early outcomes in patients undergoing treatment for TBAD. Notably, at midterm follow‐up, CSs appeared to be superior to ISF in terms of reducing stent‐related complications and minimizing the need for reintervention.
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Inc,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Wiley
Subject
