Key result
Castor-branched, chimney, and fenestration techniques showed high and comparable technical success rates (96%, 97.6%, and 95.1%; p=0.689) for left subclavian artery revascularization during TEVAR.
Why the study?
Castor-branched stent-grafts, chimney stents, and fenestration techniques are used for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR but are not routinely recommended, prompting a direct comparison of their safety and efficacy.
Do different endovascular techniques (Castor-branched stent-graft, chimney, fenestration) have comparable safety and efficacy for LSA revascularization in patients undergoing zone 2 TEVAR for type B acute aortic syndromes?
Cohort (n=133)
No
Do different endovascular techniques (Castor-branched stent-graft, chimney, fenestration) have comparable safety and efficacy for LSA revascularization in patients undergoing zone 2 TEVAR for type B acute aortic syndromes?
Absolute Event Rate: 96% vs 97.62%
p-value: p=0.689
Castor-branched stent-graft, chimney, and fenestration techniques are all feasible and safe for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR, showing comparable technical success and midterm aortic remodeling.
Comparable safety among LSA revascularization techniques in this cohort; leaves open randomized trials to guide selection.
Background Castor-branched stent-graft, chimney stent, and fenestration techniques have been employed for left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization during zone 2 thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), but not recommended routinely. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of these techniques. Methods From February 2017 to June 2020, 133 patients with type B acute aortic syndromes undergoing LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR were retrospectively enrolled. The primary outcomes include technical success, mortality, stroke and spinal cord ischemia. The secondary outcomes include aortic remodeling, LSA patency, freedom from aorta-related reintervention. Results Fifty patients were treated with the Castor-branched stent-graft (Group A), 42 with the chimney technique (Group B), and 41 with the fenestration technique (Group C). The groups demonstrated a similar technical success rate, with 96% in Group A, 97.62% in Group B, and 95.12% in Group C. Despite a more predominant bird-beak configuration in group A (p = 0.003), no significant difference was observed in perioperative complications. Two TEVAR-related deaths occurred in Groups B and C, while none was reported in Group A. During the first two years of follow-up, favorable aortic remodeling was confirmed in all groups. Each group exhibited two cases of LSA occlusions. Aorta-related reintervention and mortality did not significantly differ among the groups. Conclusion Endovascular techniques are feasible for LSA revascularization during zone 2 TEVAR, with favorable aortic remodeling. However, the durability of these procedures requires careful evaluation, given the potential concern of LSA occlusion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Type B acute aortic syndromes (n=133). Endovascular techniques (Castor-branched stent-graft, chimney stent, fenestration) vs. Compared among the three techniques was evaluated on Technical success (p=0.689). Castor-branched, chimney, and fenestration techniques showed high and comparable technical success rates (96%, 97.6%, and 95.1%; p=0.689) for left subclavian artery revascularization during TEVAR.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: