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

Abstract

AbstractTo 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.