European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery
October 14, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Clinical Outcomes and Exploratory Haemodynamic Numerical Simulation of Patients with Multichannelled Aortic Dissection: A Multicentre, Retrospective Cohort Study.
Yang J, Luan J, Shao S, Yang Y, Mao L, He F, Luo Y, Zhu T
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
Multichannelled aortic dissection carried higher early mortality and reintervention than double-channelled dissection in matched patients.
What was studied
A multicentre retrospective cohort from three hospitals comparing 50 matched patients per group, with exploratory computational fluid dynamics.
Key findings
- Preprocedural deaths occurred in 6 patients with MCAD (12%) and none with DCAD
- Estimated mortality at 30 days, 1 year and 5 years was 16%, 23%, 29% versus 4%, 8%, 12%
- Survival hazard ratio was 2.72 (95% CI 1.03-7.18)
- Reintervention was 21% versus 6%
Clinical relevance
Clinicians may consider MCAD a higher-risk phenotype that deserves close surveillance and timely evaluation.
Who should care
Limitations
It is a small retrospective study with 100 matched patients, and the haemodynamic findings are exploratory.
Recognising multiple false lumina could help flag patients who need closer follow-up.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
Multichannelled aortic dissection (MCAD) is a rare type of aortic dissection with limited data on its clinical features and outcomes. This multicentre, retrospective cohort study compared clinical outcomes between MCAD and double channelled aortic dissection (DCAD) and explored haemodynamic differences.
METHODS
Patients with aortic dissection were enrolled from three tertiary hospitals. Patients with one true lumen and one false lumen were classified as having DCAD, whereas those with one true lumen and multiple false lumina were classified as having MCAD. Propensity score matching balanced baseline characteristics. Primary outcomes were 30 day and five year all cause mortality after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included preprocedural mortality, aortic dissection related mortality, post-operative complications, and re-intervention. Overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Haemodynamic differences were evaluated by exploratory computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis.
RESULTS
After matching, 50 patients were included in each group (n = 100). The difference in 30 day mortality was significant (p = .046) and largely reflected preprocedural deaths, which occurred in six patients with MCAD (12%) and none with DCAD (p = .027). Overall survival differed between groups (log rank p = .037; hazard ratio 2.72, 95% confidence interval 1.03 - 7.18; p = .044). Kaplan-Meier estimated mortality at 30 days, one year, and five years was 16%, 23%, and 29% in MCAD compared with 4%, 8%, and 12% in DCAD, respectively. Among treated patients, re-intervention was more frequent in MCAD than in DCAD (21% vs. 6%; p = .036), whereas post-operative complication rates did not differ. Exploratory CFD analysis suggested greater false lumen haemodynamic burden in MCAD.
CONCLUSION
MCAD was associated with greater preprocedural mortality and more frequent re-intervention than DCAD. These findings may identify MCAD as a higher risk phenotype warranting closer surveillance and timely evaluation. Haemodynamic observations remain exploratory and require validation in larger prospective cohorts.
DOI
10.1016/j.ejvs.2026.10.004
PMID
42874838
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed