Key result
Frozen elephant trunk linked to ~75% fewer 5-year aortic events vs. AAR in type A dissection.
Why the study?
To compare ascending aortic replacement, total arch replacement with conventional elephant trunk, and frozen elephant trunk for acute type A aortic dissection, including stratification by arch vessel dissection.
Does the frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure reduce aortic events compared to ascending aortic replacement or conventional elephant trunk in patients with DeBakey type I acute type A aortic dissection?
Cohort (n=334)
Yes
Does the frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure reduce aortic events compared to ascending aortic replacement or conventional elephant trunk in patients with DeBakey type I acute type A aortic dissection?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients with DeBakey type I acute aortic dissection, the frozen elephant trunk procedure significantly reduces the 5-year incidence of aortic events compared to ascending aortic replacement or conventional elephant trunk.
OBJECTIVES: To compare 3 surgical procedures (ascending aortic replacement [AAR], total arch replacement with conventional elephant trunk [cET], or frozen elephant trunk [FET]) for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). Additionally, the AAR group was stratified by the presence or absence of arch vessel dissection (AVD), and outcomes were evaluated among the 4 groups. METHODS: Patients who underwent AAR or total arch replacement with cET or FET for DeBakey type I ATAAD between December 2006 to December 2024 at 5 institutions were included. The cumulative incidence of aortic events, defined as aortic enlargement, aortic reintervention, or aorta-related adverse events, was compared between procedures using pairwise comparisons adjusted by inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Of the total 334 patients, 136 with AAR, 94 with cET, and 104 with FET were enrolled. The 5-year cumulative incidence of aortic events was lower for FET compared with that for cET and AAR (AAR: 57.7% vs cET: 49.1% vs FET: 25.2%). Further stratification of the AAR group revealed worse outcomes for AAR with AVD (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.95; P = .005). FET showed superior outcomes compared with all other groups, including AAR without AVD (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.67; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: FET for ATAAD was associated with a lower incidence of aortic events compared with other procedures. FET may be a beneficial option for ATAAD with AVD, which is associated with a higher incidence of aortic events after AAR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iba et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in DeBakey type I acute aortic dissection (ATAAD) (n=334). Frozen elephant trunk (FET) vs. Ascending aortic replacement (AAR) or conventional elephant trunk (cET) was evaluated on Cumulative incidence of aortic events, defined as aortic enlargement, aortic reintervention, or aorta-related adverse events (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.67, p=.006). Frozen elephant trunk for acute type A aortic dissection was associated with a lower 5-year incidence of aortic events compared with AAR without arch vessel dissection.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: