PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 17, 2026Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annals0 citations

Early and midterm outcomes of Frozenix Partial-ET versus conventional Frozenix in total arch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection

View Full Paper
RMRyumon MatsumotoRKRyoji KinoshitaTWTaiju Watanabe

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate early outcomes and aortic remodeling effects of the Frozenix Partial-ET in patients undergoing total arch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection.
  • Retrospective analysis of 47 patients undergoing total arch replacement with Frozenix from January 2017 to December 2024.
  • Comparison of outcomes between 34 patients receiving conventional Frozenix and 13 receiving Frozenix Partial-ET.
  • Assessment of clinical outcomes, CT-based morphological parameters, and aortic remodeling.
  • No significant differences in mortality or major complications between groups.
  • The Partial-ET group showed greater distal stent angulation (34.5° vs. 24.5°).
  • No distal stent graft-induced new entry (dSINE) occurred during a mean follow-up of 6.4 months.
  • Aortic remodeling outcomes were similar for both groups.
  • Partial-ET group had shorter lower body ischemia time and better proximal distal stent deployment.

Abstract

BackgroundIn this study, we sought to evaluate the early outcomes and aortic remodeling effects of the Frozenix Partial-ET in total arch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection, and its potential to reduce distal stent graft-induced new entry (dSINE).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 47 patients who underwent total arch replacement with a frozen elephant trunk (FET) between January 2017 and December 2024, among whom, 34 received the conventional Frozenix (Full-FET group), and 13 received the Frozenix Partial-ET (Partial-ET group). Clinical outcomes, CT-based morphological parameters, and aortic remodeling were compared.ResultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups regarding mortality or major complications. Patients in the Partial-ET group had greater distal stent angulation (34.5 ± 8.9° vs. 24.5 ± 13.7°), and no dSINE was observed during a mean follow-up period of 6.4 months. Aortic remodeling outcomes were comparable between the two groups, while the Partial-ET group demonstrated shorter lower body ischemia time and more proximal distal stent deployment.ConclusionsApplication of Frozenix Partial-ET resulted in outcomes comparable to those obtained using the conventional device, without an increase in mortality or major complications. Despite a greater distal angulation, no early dSINE was observed during the study period. This device may represent a feasible option in selected cases of acute type A dissection, although further long-term data are needed to clarify its efficacy.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Matsumoto et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69e1cf985cdc762e9d85879chttps://doi.org/10.1177/02184923261440414
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper