Importance of Refractory Pain and Hypertension in Acute Type B Aortic Dissection

Biomechanical Changes After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Type B Dissection

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has evolved into an established treatment option for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) since it was first introduced 2 decades ago. Morbidity and mortality have decreased due to the minimally invasive character of TEVAR, with adequate stabilization of the dissection, restoration of true lumen perfusion, and subsequent positive aortic remodeling. However, several studies have reported severe setbacks of this technique. Indeed, little is known about the biomechanical behavior of implanted thoracic stent-grafts and the impact on the vascular system. This study sought to systematically review the performance and behavior of implanted thoracic stent-grafts and related biomechanical aortic changes in TBAD patients in order to update current knowledge and future perspectives.

Effect of Intravascular Ultrasound-assisted Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for "Complicated" Type B Aortic Dissection

Background:

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) examination can provide useful information during endovascular stent graft repair. However, its actual clinical utility in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (type B-AD) remains unclear, especially in complicated aortic dissection. We evaluated the effect of IVUS as a complementary tool during TEVAR.

Methods:

From September 2011 to April 2012, we conducted a prospective cohort study of 47 consecutive patients with “complicated” type B-AD diagnosed. We divided the patients into two groups: IVUS-assisted TEVAR group and TEVAR using angiography alone group. The general procedure of TEVAR was performed. We evaluated the perioperative and follow-up events. Patient demographics, comorbidities, preoperative images, dissection morphology, details of operative strategy, intraoperative events, and postoperative course were recorded.

Results:

A total of 47 patients receiving TEVAR were enrolled. Among them (females, 8.51%; mean age, 57.38 ± 13.02 years), 13 cases (27.66%) were selected in the IVUS-assisted TEVAR group, and 34 were selected in the TEVAR group. All patients were symptomatic. The average diameter values of IVUS measurements in the landing zone were greater than those estimated by computed tomography angiography (31.82 ± 4.21 mm vs. 30.64 ± 4.13 mm, P < 0.001). The technique success rate was 100%. Among the postoperative outcomes, statistical differences were only observed between the IVUS-assisted TEVAR group and TEVAR group for total operative time and the amount of contrast used (P = 0.013 and P < 0.001, respectively). The follow-up ranged from 15 to 36 months for the IVUS-assisted TEVAR group and from 10 to 35 months for the TEVAR group (P = 0.646). The primary endpoints were no statistical difference in the two groups.

Conclusions:

Intraoperative IVUS-assisted TEVAR is clinically feasible and safe. For the endovascular repair of “complicated” type B-AD, IVUS may be helpful for understanding dissection morphology and decrease the operative time and the amount of contrast used.

Prognostic Impact of Blood Pressure Variability on Aortic Dissection Patients After Endovascular Therapy

Hypertension has been deemed as a pivotal risk factor for the development of aortic dissection; however, the importance and prognostic significance of blood pressure variability (BPV) in aortic dissection are always ignored. A total of 173 acute type B aortic dissection patients were enrolled in and retrospectively reviewed between January 2009 and November 2013. There were 74 patients with high BPV and 99 with low BPV stratified by preoperative mean BPV. Technical success was achieved in all patients. The proportions of hypertension and general anesthesia were significantly higher in the high BPV group (70.3% vs 55.6% and 77% vs 62.6%, P = 0.049 and 0.043, respectively). The risk of aorta-related death in the high BPV group was apparently higher than the low BPV group (28.4% vs 9.1%, P = 0.001). By performing multivariable logistic regression, we found history of hypertension was likely to be a risk factor of BPV (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.010-3.911), and high BPV was an independent predictor of aorta-related death (95% CI: 1.671-9.587). The difference of aorta-related mortality was pronounced between high and low BPV subgroups regardless of the refractory hypertension (41.4% vs 14.3% and 20.0% vs 7.0%, P = 0.023 and 0.037, respectively). The thrombosis ratio of false lumen was significantly higher in the low BPV group at 3-month (72.4 ± 17.5% vs 51.8 ± 11.6%, P < 0.001) and 6-month (86.4 ± 9.1% vs 69.7 ± 7.9%, P < 0.001). High BPV is an independent risk factor for the prognosis of aortic dissection. Further studies on BPV might provide new preventive and therapeutic strategies for aortic dissection.

Management of aortic dissection: medical therapy and intervention. Is there a growing role for endovascular techniques?

OPINION STATEMENT

Historically, type B aortic dissection was managed as a medical condition with limited surgical intervention unless aortic rupture occurred. Today, however, evidence is building that highlights the importance of strict medical management, timely surveillance, and windows of opportunity for surgical intervention to address both early and late aortic-based morbidities.

[Traumatic aortic rupture and concomitant type B aortic dissection after skiing accident]

The occurrence of aortic dissections after deceleration trauma is commonplace but aortic injuries after blunt trauma are extremely rare complications. We report a case of an acute aortic rupture accompanied by a type B dissection after a skiing accident with blunt thoracic trauma and renal contusion. The leading symptom was the onset of hematuria 12 h later. The computed tomography (CT) angiography permitted the exact diagnosis and the patient was transferred for acute thoracic endovascular aortic repair. This regimen resulted in the patient achieving a stable condition and potentially harmful complications could be avoided.

Management of acute aortic dissection

A new appraisal of the management of acute aortic dissection is timely because of recent developments in diagnostic strategies (including biomarkers and imaging), endograft design, and surgical treatment, which have led to a better understanding of the epidemiology, risk factors, and molecular nature of aortic dissection. Although open surgery is the main treatment for proximal aortic repair, use of endovascular management is now established for complicated distal dissection and distal arch repair, and has recently been discussed as a pre-emptive measure to avoid late complications by inducing aortic remodelling.

Type B Aortic Dissection: A Review of Prognostic Factors and Meta-analysis of Treatment Options

According to international guidelines, stable patients with uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) should receive optimal medical treatment. Despite adequate antihypertensive therapy, the long-term prognosis of these patients is characterized by a significant aortic aneurysm formation in 25-30% within four years, and survival rates from 50 to 80% at five years and 30 to 60% at 10 years. In a prospective randomized trial, preemptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with chronic uncomplicated TBAD was associated with an excess early mortality (due to periprocedural hazards), but the procedure showed its benefit in prevention of aortic-specific mortality at five years of follow-up. However, preemptive TEVAR may not be the treatment of choice in all patients with uncomplicated TBAD because of the inherent periprocedural complications like stroke, paraparesis, and death, as well as stent graft-induced complications (i.e., retrograde dissection or endoleaks). Thus, the TEVAR-related deaths and complications (especially paraplegia and stroke) raise concerns that moderate the better survival with TEVAR at five years. By timely identification of those patients prone for developing complications, early intervention, preferably in the subacute or early chronic phase, may improve the overall long-term outcome for these patients. Therefore, early detectable and reliable prognostic factors for adverse events are essential to stratify patients who can be treated medically and those who will benefit from rigorous follow-up and, in the long-term, from timely, or even prophylactic, TEVAR. Several studies have identified prognostic factors in TBAD such as aortic diameter, partial false lumen thrombosis, false lumen thickness, and location of the primary entry tear. Combining these clinical and radiological predictors may be essential to implement a patient-specific approach designed to intervene only in those patients who are at high risk of developing complications to improve the long-term outcomes of patients with uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection.

[Risk evaluation of type B aortic dissection: importance for treatment of acute aortic syndrome]

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a modern term used to describe interrelated emergency aortic conditions with similar clinical characteristics and challenges including aortic dissection, intramural hematoma (IMH) and penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU). Population-based studies suggest that the incidence of aortic dissection ranges from 2.6 to 3.5 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year; hypertension and a variety of genetic disorders with altered connective tissue are the most prevalent risk conditions. In general, open surgical repair is recommended when dissection involves the ascending aorta, whereas medical management and endovascular stent graft repair is the best option when the ascending aorta is spared. Pathological conditions involving the aortic arch may be treated using a hybrid approach combining debranching of supra-aortic vessels and stent graft placement. Stent graft-induced remodeling of a dissected aorta seems to have long-term benefits in complicated and so-called uncomplicated type B dissections as almost every case reveals a risk profile and one in eight patients diagnosed with acute type B aortic dissection has either an IMH or a PAU. Pain is the most commonly presenting symptom of AAS and should prompt immediate attention including diagnostic imaging modalities, such as multislice computed tomography, transesophageal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. A specific therapeutic approach is necessary for IMH and PAU because without treatment they have a very poor outcome, are unpredictable in evolution and can be more severe than acute aortic dissection. All patients must receive the best medical treatment available at admission. High-risk but asymptomatic patients with IMH and PAU can probably be monitored without interventions. All symptomatic patients will need treatment. In many of these patients a direct surgical approach is often prohibitive due to age and multiple comorbidities. Endovascular treatment offers superior results and is becoming a recognized indication for such patients. Irrespective of the treatment modality close surveillance is mandatory in order to monitor disease progression.

Long-term outcomes in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair for chronic type B dissection

INTRODUCTION

Open repair for chronic aortic dissection remains a challenging surgical option. Different centers report diverse experiences and outcomes pertaining to thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair (TAAAR) for chronic type B dissection. We highlight our center's experience and results on a background of published literature and current evidence.

METHODS

We reviewed 214 open TAAAR performed between October 1998 and February 2014. Of these, chronic type B dissection was present in 62 (29.0%) patients. We reviewed these patients in terms of demographics, operative characteristics and outcomes. Thirteen (21.0%) patients had surgery on the descending thoracic aorta [Category A =2 (3.2%), B =0 (0%), C =11 (17.7%)] and 49 (79.0%) in the thoracoabdominal thoracic aorta [Crawford extent I =5 (8.1%), extent II =39 (62.9%), extent III =4 (6.5%), extent IV =1 (1.6%)]. Left heart bypass was used in 12 (19.4%) patients.

RESULTS

The composite in-hospital endpoint, adverse outcome-defined as operative death, renal failure necessitating dialysis at discharge, stroke, or permanent paraplegia or paraparesis-occurred after 28 (45.2%) procedures. There were 14 (22.6%) operative deaths. In-hospital mortality was seven (16.3%) out of 43 elective patients, and increased to seven (36.8%) of the 19 non-elective ones. Permanent paraplegia or paraparesis occurred after two (3.2%) cases, stroke occurred after seven (11.3%) and renal failure requiring dialysis occurred after 16 (25.8%). Mean follow-up time was 3.2 years and actuarial 5-year mortality was 27.4% [nine (14.5%) elective and eight (12.9%) non-elective patients].

CONCLUSIONS

TAAAR in chronic type B dissection carries a substantial risk of early adverse outcomes. The results could be well alleviated with cases directed towards specialized regional and supra-regional centers. Although the endovascular approaches offer relatively low mortality and morbidity, there is a lack of long-term data and guidelines on their use. There is a need for a multidisciplinary international registry on the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms and dissection. This would provide a degree of guidance on relevant clinical and surgical judgments and outcomes.

Acute type B aortic dissection: insights from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection

Acute type B aortic dissection comprises approximately one-third of all aortic dissection cases. Although this catastrophic cardiovascular condition was first described in the medical literature over two centuries ago, data on the optimal diagnostic and treatment modalities for type B dissection was slow to evolve throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, even as newer diagnostic techniques and management strategies became commonplace. To further elucidate contemporary practice patterns and outcomes of aortic dissection, the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) was established in 1996. Over the past two decades, IRAD publications have steadily increased our knowledge and understanding about aortic dissection. Specifically in recent years, analyses of IRAD data have gone beyond simply characterizing the patient with acute type B aortic dissection and have attempted to identify the means by which the outcome of such a patient could be improved. Thus, we present herein three areas in which IRAD data has recently advanced our understanding of acute type B aortic dissection: temporal classification especially for the subacute time period, risk stratification for identifying complicated cases, and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Clinical features of acute aortic dissection from the Registry of Aortic Dissection in China

OBJECTIVE

To establish a systematic registry of aortic dissection in China, assess the clinical features of Chinese patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD), and compare our results with the data published by the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD).

METHODS

We established the first Registry of Aortic Dissection in China (Sino-RAD) in 2011. Then we evaluated 1003 patients with AAD in Sino-RAD and compared our results with those reported by IRAD.

RESULTS

Compared with IRAD, the patients with AAD in Sino-RAD were significantly younger. Also, the ratio of male patients in Sino-RAD was significantly greater for the total cohort and the type A and B cohorts. The overall in-hospital mortality was 10.3% in Sino-RAD. For type A dissection, more patients in Sino-RAD received medical treatment and fewer received surgical treatment. The overall mortality, mortality of medical treatment, and mortality of surgical treatment was lower in Sino-RAD. In type B dissection, fewer patients in Sino-RAD received medical and surgical treatment and more received endovascular treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The first Sino-RAD, including 15 large cardiovascular centers throughout China, was established. Our data were compared with those reported by IRAD. We found that, compared with Western populations, Chinese patients with AAD showed 6 differences, including earlier onset, more male patients, a low incidence of hypertension, a low incidence of chest pain, a high incidence of back pain, great differences in the choice of therapeutic strategies, and relatively low in-hospital mortality.

Management of complicated and uncomplicated acute type B dissection. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of acute type B dissection represents a clinical challenge. We undertook a systematic review of the available literature regarding medical, surgical and endovascular treatments of acute type B aortic dissection and combined the eligible studies into a meta-analysis.

METHODS

An extensive electronic health database search was performed on all articles published from January 2006 up to November 2013 describing the management of acute type B aortic dissection. Studies including less than 15 patients were excluded.

RESULTS

ACUTE COMPLICATED TYPE B DISSECTION: overall, 2,531 patients were treated with endovascular repair (TEVAR) and the pooled rate for 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 7.3%. The pooled estimates for cerebrovascular events, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) and total neurologic events were 3.9%, 3.1% and 7.3%, respectively. A total of 1,276 patients underwent open surgical repair and the pooled rate for 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 19.0%. The pooled rate for cerebrovascular events was 6.8%, for SCI 3.3% and for total neurologic complications 9.8%. Acute uncomplicated type B dissection: outcome of 2,347 patients who underwent conservative medical management were analyzed. The pooled 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate was 2.4%. The pooled rate for cerebrovascular events was 1%, for SCI 0.8% and for overall neurologic complications 2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular repair provides a superior 30-day/in-hospital survival for acute complicated type B aortic dissection compared to surgical aortic reconstruction. However, open repair still has a significant role as endovascular repair is not applicable in all patients and there remains concerns regarding the durability of this technique. TEVAR seems to have a more favorable outcome regarding aortic remodeling and the aortic-specific survival rate when compared with medical therapy alone. Randomized controlled trials focusing on the prognostic factors of early and late complications in uncomplicated type B dissections are needed.

Debate: Whether level I evidence comparing thoracic endovascular repair and medical management is necessary for uncomplicated type B aortic dissections

Type B aortic dissections continue to be one of the most challenging clinical scenarios confronting vascular surgeons. In the era of open surgery, the therapeutic options were limited to medical management of hypertension and large open thoracoabdominal operations. In the current endovascular era, the operative strategies have become less invasive but the questions regarding therapeutic approaches have become more numerous and complex. In patients with acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections, we are still unsure as to which patients are best treated with medical therapy alone or with the addition of early endovascular repair. Data from single centers and registries have provided some guidance; however, questions remain. Perhaps level 1 evidence from well-designed randomized controlled trials will answer all of our questions. This is the topic of the current debate.

Treatment of acute type-B aortic dissection: thoracic endovascular aortic repair or medical management alone?

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the early and long-term effect of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on type-B acute aortic dissection (AAD).

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated type-B AAD is generally treated with medical management; complicated dissections require surgery or TEVAR. Studies have demonstrated that long-term outcomes with medical management are suboptimal. Therefore, we sought to determine the long-term effect of TEVAR compared with medical management alone on type-B AAD.

METHODS

From January 2004 to May 2008, 193 consecutive patients in 2 hospitals were treated and retrospectively placed into 1 of 2 groups: 1) the TEVAR group-type-B AAD treated with TEVAR and antihypertensive medications (n = 152); and the 2) medicine group-uncomplicated type-B AAD treated medically alone (n = 41). All TEVAR procedures were performed in the acute phase.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographics, comorbidity profiles, or early events between groups. The cumulative freedom from all late adverse events at 1, 3, and 5 years was 97%, 89%, and 67% in the TEVAR group and 97%, 63%, and 34% in the medicine group. Log-rank tests showed that medically treated patients had more late adverse events than TEVAR-treated patients did (p = 0.003). The 5-year cumulative survival rate from all-cause death was not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with type-B AAD treated with TEVAR experienced fewer late adverse events than those treated with medical management, but there was no significant difference among the groups in 5-year mortality rates. Further studies of longer-term survival rates are needed to determine whether TEVAR could be an effective treatment for type-B AAD.

Endovascular Versus Medical Therapy for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

Background:

Uncomplicated type B dissections have been traditionally managed with antihypertensive therapy. In the endovascular era, this dictum has been revisited. This review pooled the available studies to compare the outcomes of best medical therapy (BMT) to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B dissections.

Methods:

A literature search was performed to identify studies on uncomplicated type B dissections managed with BMT with and without TEVAR. The primary outcome measures were mortality rates at 30 days and at 2 years following intervention.

Results:

A total of 6 studies included 123 patients who underwent TEVAR/BMT, and 566 patients who had BMT alone. The mortality rates at 30 days (6.5% TEVAR/BMT vs 4.8% BMT, P = .21) and at 2 years (9.7% vs 11.9%, P = .32) were similar. Renal failure was greater in TEVAR/BMT (15.4% vs 2.1%, P < .01). Rates of surgical reintervention/intervention were similar (17.6% vs 20.1%, P = .31).

Conclusion:

The TEVAR with BMT does not provide survival benefit compared to BMT alone, 2 years following uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.

Acute aortic emergencies--part 2: aortic dissections

Patients with aortic disease are some of the highest acuity patients that emergency clinicians encounter. Dissection is the most common aortic catastrophe and involves separation of the aortic layers in a longitudinal fashion leading to diminished perfusion and systemic ischemia. Characteristics of pain, branch vessel involvement, and incidence lead to an understanding of patient presentation, morbidity, and mortality. Diagnosis, selection of diagnostic studies, the degree of preoperative ischemia, and risk of operative mortality can be accomplished using validated clinical decision tools. Emergency interventions are guided by the type of dissection according to the Stanford classification system. Medical management includes pain control and anti-impulse, antihypertensive therapy through vasodilatation and blockage of the sympathetic β-response. The patient may then be evaluated for open surgical intervention, aortic fenestration, endovascularly placed stent grafts, or a combination possibly in a staged approach. Morbidity includes rupture, stroke, paraplegia, acute renal failure, bowel ischemia, and peripheral ischemia.

Utility of measuring C-reactive protein for prediction of in-hospital events in patients with acute aortic dissection

Controlling blood pressure is essential for prevention of events after acute aortic dissection (AAD). However, in some instances a cardiac event occurs despite controlled blood pressure, and its prediction is difficult. We continuously monitored C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients receiving medical treatment for AAD and retrospectively examined the utility of CRP measurement for prediction of in-hospital events. Five hundred and eight patients were diagnosed as having AAD between 1993 and 2009, 240 of whom underwent antihypertensive medical therapy. These subjects were 156 males and 84 females, average age 67.4 years, with 68 cases of Stanford type A and 172 cases of Stanford type B. C-reactive protein was measured in all patients daily until a peak; subsequently, CRP was measured 2-3 times per week following the peak until discharge. In the event-free group CRP demonstrated a peak on the 4th day after the onset (average 13.7 mg/dl), then gradually decreased to an average of 4.6 mg/dl 4 weeks later, displaying a "gradual decay" pattern. Despite controlled systolic arterial pressure of approximately 120 mmHg, 7 of 68 Stanford A cases (10.3 %) and 8 of 172 Stanford B cases (4.7 %) developed cardiovascular events. The group characterized by events exhibited a CRP pattern distinct from that of the event-free group, i.e., prolonged elevation and/or re-elevation. We demonstrated that the CRP pattern could provide information regarding prediction of cardiovascular events. Prolonged elevation or re-elevation of CRP may indicate the necessity of (1) application of computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, (2) more rigorous blood pressure management, or (3) early surgical intervention.

Predictors of poor blood pressure control assessed by 24 hour monitoring in patients with type B acute aortic dissection

The chronic management of post-acute aortic dissection (AD) of the descending aorta (Type B) is based on optimal control of blood pressure (BP), with a target BP < 135/80 mmHg. The aim of our study was to determine and verify effective blood pressure control with an objective measurement method and to identify predicting factors.

Susceptibility to acute thoracic aortic dissections in patients dying outside the hospital: an autopsy study

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this study were to identify the incidence and predictors of death from acute thoracic aortic dissections (AoDs) and to describe their associated clinical findings.

METHODS

We analyzed the clinical and pathologic data from 141 consecutive autopsies of individuals with sudden death due to AoDs in Harris County, TX, from 2003 to 2010, which represented 20% (107/534) of all deaths attributed to AoDs during this period by the Texas Department of Health. Multivariate Cox regression was used to identify predictors of survival adjusting for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

During the study period, 141 of 145 fatal victims of acute thoracic dissections underwent a full autopsy and were included in the analysis. In 84% of cases, death was caused by pericardial tamponade from ascending AoD. The frequency of deaths showed seasonal variation with peak incidence in the winter months. Compared with patients presenting to hospitals with AoD, individuals dying outside the hospital were more likely to be female, African American, younger than 50 years and to have had prior aortic disease. One third of subjects with AoD had seen a physician within 1 week of sudden death. The most consistent pathologic abnormality was marked ventricular hypertrophy (257 g/m(2) on average) out of proportion to expected values for age, gender, and body size. Hispanic patients and patients with congenital disorders, such as bicuspid aortic valve and Marfan syndrome, were significantly more likely to die of AoD at a younger age (38% vs 13%, P < .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings identify differences between patients hospitalized for AoD versus those who died without being hospitalized. Previously unreported vulnerabilities to sudden death from AoD in minority populations, specifically Hispanics, were also identified that merit follow-up in prospective studies.

Management of acute aortic syndromes

Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a modern term to describe interrelated emergency aortic conditions with similar clinical characteristics and challenges. These conditions include aortic dissection, intramural haematoma (IMH), and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU and aortic rupture); trauma to the aorta with intimal laceration may also be considered. The common denominator of AAS is disruption of the media layer of the aorta with bleeding within IMH, along the aortic media resulting in separation of the layers of the aorta (dissection), or transmurally through the wall in the case of ruptured PAU or trauma. Population-based studies suggest that the incidence of acute dissection ranges from 2 to 3.5 cases per 100 000 person-years; hypertension and a variety of genetic disorders with altered connective tissues are the most prevalent risk conditions. Patients with AAS often present in a similar fashion, regardless of the underlying condition of dissection, IMH, PAU, or contained aortic rupture. Pain is the most commonly presenting symptom of acute aortic dissection and should prompt immediate attention including diagnostic imaging modalities (such as multislice computed tomography, transoesophageal ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging). Prognosis is clearly related to undelayed diagnosis and appropriate surgical repair in the case of proximal involvement of the aorta; affection of distal segments of the aorta may call for individualized therapeutic approaches favouring endovascular in the presence of malperfusion or imminent rupture, or medical management.