Strategies for subacute/chronic type B aortic dissection: The Investigation of Stent Grafts in Patients with Type B Aortic Dissection (INSTEAD) trial 1-year outcome

Transcatheter electrosurgical septotomy technique for chronic postdissection aortic aneurysms

Aortic dissection often results in chronic aneurysmal degeneration due to progressive false lumen expansion. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair and other techniques of vessel incorporation such as fenestrated-branched or parallel grafts have been increasingly used to treat chronic postdissection aneurysms. True lumen compression or a vessel origin from the false lumen can present considerable technical challenges. In these cases, the limited true lumen space can result in inadequate stent graft expansion or restrict the ability to reposition the device or manipulate catheters. Reentrance techniques can be used selectively to assist with target vessel catheterization. Transcatheter electrosurgical septotomy is a novel technique that has evolved from the cardiology experience with transseptal or transcatheter aortic valve procedures. This technique has been applied in select patients with chronic dissection to create a proximal or distal landing zone, disrupt the septum in patients with an excessively compressed true lumen, or connect the true and false lumen in patients with vessels that have separate origins. In the present report, we summarize the indications and technical pitfalls of transcatheter electrosurgical septotomy in patients treated by endovascular repair for chronic postdissection aortic aneurysms.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Midterm Outcomes of Endovascular vs. Medical Therapy for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time to Event Data

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) vs. medical therapy in uncomplicated type B aortic dissections (TBAD).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciELO, LILACS, CENTRAL/CCTR, Google Scholar, and reference lists of relevant articles.

REVIEW METHODS

This was a pooled meta-analysis of time to event data extracted from studies published by December 2022 for the following outcomes: all cause mortality, aortic related mortality, and late aortic interventions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the eligibility criteria (eight observational; two randomised trials), comprising 17 906 patients (2 332 patients in the TEVAR groups and 15 574 patients in the medical therapy group). Compared with patients who received medical therapy, patients who underwent TEVAR had a statistically significantly lower risk of all cause death (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 - 0.87, p < .001; GRADE certainty: low) and lower risk of aortic related death (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 - 0.62, p < .001; GRADE certainty: low) without statistically significant difference in the risk of late aortic interventions (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 - 1.26, p = .56; GRADE certainty: low). In the subgroup analyses, TEVAR was associated with lower risk of all cause death when randomised controlled trials only were pooled (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 - 0.83, p = .012; GRADE certainty: moderate), younger patients only (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47 - 0.67, p < .001; GRADE certainty: low), Western populations only (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 - 0.93, p = .001; GRADE certainty: low) and non-Western populations only (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 - 0.62, p < .001; GRADE certainty: low). For all cause mortality and aortic related mortality, restricted mean survival time was overall 396 days and 398 days longer with TEVAR (p < .001), respectively, which means that TEVAR was associated with lifetime gain.

CONCLUSION

TEVAR may be associated with better midterm survival and lower risk of aortic related death in the follow up of patients treated for uncomplicated TBAD compared with medical therapy; however, randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer follow up are still warranted.

Left subclavian artery revascularization is associated with less neurologic injury after endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze patients with acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) requiring thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage to determine whether LSA revascularization decreased the risk of neurologic complications.

METHODS

The national Vascular Quality Initiative TEVAR module was queried for all procedures performed between 2014 and 2021. Patients presenting with aortic aneurysms or aortic ruptures were excluded from the analysis. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether their LSA was revascularized (prior to or during TEVAR) or not. Univariate followed by multivariate analysis was used to account for possible confounders and evaluate the association of LSA revascularization with the primary outcome of neurologic injury (stroke or spinal cord ischemia).

RESULTS

Among patients who had TEVAR for aTBAD, 501 patients had the LSA covered. The LSA was revascularized prior to or concomitant with TEVAR in 28% of these patients (n = 139). Average age was 57 years, and 73% (n = 366) were male. Neurologic injury developed in 88 patients (18%). On univariate analysis, patients who had their LSA revascularized were significantly less likely to develop neurologic injury (10% vs 20%; P < .01). This association persisted after accounting for potential confounders (odds ratio, 0.4; P = .02). No significant difference was seen when comparing 30-day or 1-year mortality between patients who had LSA revascularization and those who did not. Follow-up averaged 1.9 years (range, 0-8.1 years). Long-term survival did not differ between the two groups on Kaplan-Meier analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of patients with aTBAD who underwent LSA coverage during TEVAR, the addition of a LSA revascularization procedure was associated with a significantly lower incidence of neurological injury including spinal cord ischemia and/or stroke.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair or best medical therapy for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection? A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate all studies comparing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and best medical therapy (BMT) for the treatment of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed/Medline and Web of Knowledge were searched until September 2014 for relevant studies published in English. Pooled odds ratio (OR) and its corresponding 95% CI were analyzed with Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan v.5.3).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Our analysis showed that compared with BMT, TEVAR did not significantly affect 30-day (hospital) mortality. A significantly lower 1-year and 2- or 3-year survival rates was observed with TEVAR vs. BMT. Interestingly, a trend just short of statistical significance towards higher 4- or 5-year survival was found with TEVAR treatment (P=0.08). No significant differences were found in false lumen (FL) thrombosis formation with TEVAR vs. BMT treatment. However, a trend toward less incomplete or no FL thrombosis was noted with TEVAR. No significantly impact on the risk of later re-intervention was found with TEVAR vs. BMT.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR did not provide obvious early survival advantage for uncomplicated TBAD over BMT, especially in the patients using TEVAR alone. It may remain a treatment option in uncomplicated TBAD patients with high risks for later complications. More randomized, prospective, long-term studies are needed to further clarify whether TEVAR could be a better first-line treatment strategy vs. BMT for uncomplicated TBAD.

ARISE: First-In-Human Evaluation of a Novel Stent Graft to Treat Ascending Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Operative mortality for type A aortic dissection is still 10-20% at centers of excellence. Additionally, 10-20% are not considered as viable candidates for open surgical repair and not offered life-saving emergency surgery. ARISE is a multicenter investigation evaluating the novel GORE® Ascending Stent Graft (ASG; Flagstaff, AZ).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to assess early feasibility of using these investigational devices to treat ascending aortic dissection.

METHODS

This a prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, single-arm study that enrolls patients at high surgical risk with appropriate anatomical requirements based on computed tomography imaging at 7 of 9 US sites. Devices are delivered transfemorally under fluoroscopic guidance. Primary endpoint is all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary endpoints include major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were enrolled with a mean age of 75.7 years (range 47-91) and 11 (57.9%) were female. Ten (52.6%) had DeBakey type I disease, and the rest were type II. Sixteen (84.2%) of the patients were acute. Patients were treated with safe access, (7/19 (36.8%) percutaneous, 10/19 (52.6%) transfemoral, 2/19 (10.5%) iliac conduit), delivery, and deployment completed in all cases. Median procedure time was 154 mins (range 52-392) and median contrast used was 111 mL (range 75-200). MACCE at 30 days occurred in 5 patients including mortality 3/19 (15.8%), disabling stroke in 1/19 (5.3%), and myocardial infarction in 1/19 (5.3%).

CONCLUSION

Results from the ARISE early feasibility study of a specific ascending stent graft device to treat ascending aortic dissection are promising.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidences in endograft therapy versus medical treatment for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

Best medical therapy (BMT) should be recommended for treating uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection (uSTBAD), whereas thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) has been controversial for uSTBAD.

METHODS

In this paper, a meta-analysis was conducted on all available randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluated the relative benefits and harms of TEVAR and BMT for the management of patients suffering from uSTBAD. Primary endpoints consisted of early adverse events, long-term adverse events and aortic remodeling. In addition, Risk difference (RD) or Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. The random effects model or the fixed-effects model was used in accordance with the 50% heterogeneity threshold.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies and two RCT studies from 11 articles that contained 15066 patients suffering from uSTBAD (1518 TEVARs) met the inclusion criteria. For early outcomes, no significant differences were found between the TEVAR group and the BMT group in aortic rupture, retrograde dissection, paraplegia/paraparesis, reintervention, aorta-related death and all caused death. In the long run, the TEVAR group was found to have a significantly lower incidence of adverse events, which included aortic rupture (OR:0.26, CI:0.16∼0.42, P<0.05; heterogeneity: P=0.90, I²=0%), reintervention (OR:0.45, CI:0.26∼0.75, P<0.05; heterogeneity: P=0.17, I²=41%), aorta-related death (OR:0.27, CI:0.18∼0.42, P<0.05; heterogeneity: P=0.61, I²=0%) and all caused death (OR:0.52, CI:0.42∼0.66, P<0.05; heterogeneity: P=0.05, I²=53%) as compared with the BMT group. Moreover, in compared with BMT, TEVAR was found to significantly contribute to the complete thrombosis of thoracic false lumen (OR:55.34, CI:34.32∼89.21, P<0.05; heterogeneity: P=0.97, I²=0%) and aortic regression (true lumen expansion and false lumen shrinkage).

CONCLUSIONS

Although early endovascular repair of uSTBAD does not outperform BMT, its implementation is found to be necessary to facilitate the long-term prognosis. Accordingly, if early TEVAR is to be deferred, close follow-up is critical to allow for timely reintervention.

Long-Term Aortic Remodeling After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Type B Dissections

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the characteristics and predictors of aortic remodeling over a long-term follow-up period after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute, subacute, and chronic type B aortic dissections (TBADs).

Methods

Patients who underwent TEVAR for TBAD from July 2011 to December 2013 were included, and relevant data were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

After TEVAR, the true lumen (TL) dimension increased and the false lumen (FL) dimension decreased or did not change over a 5-year follow-up period in all three temporal groups. Shrinkage proportion of the thoracic aorta was the highest in the subacute group (acute, 28.1%; subacute, 39.1%; and chronic, 17.4%; p = 0.048), while abdominal expansion showed no significant differences among the groups (acute, 29.6%; subacute, 40.5%; and chronic, 44.4%; p = 0.502). The chronic group had a rate of complete FL regression, which is lower than the subacute or acute group at all anatomic sections, with significant differences only in the stented section (chronic, 21.7%; acute, 92.2%; and subacute, 80.4%; p < 0.05) and in the distal thoracic aortic section (chronic, 13.0%; acute, 31.1%; and subacute, 50.0%; p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that chronic dissection, TL compression, endoleak, the number of branches from FL, and the number of residual tears affected optimal FL remodeling.

Conclusion

The present study provides data on aortic remodeling of TBAD after TEVAR during a long-term follow-up period. The features and risk factors of aortic remodeling in the acute, subacute, and chronic phases are different in different aortic segments. These findings may have implications in the timing of TEVAR.

Timing of endovascular repair impacts long-term outcomes of uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

To compare the 5-year outcomes of acute versus subacute thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (ATBAD).

METHODS

Between March 2008 and September 2018, 238 consecutive patients with uncomplicated ATBAD underwent TEVAR in the acute or subacute phase and were analyzed retrospectively. The primary end points were all-cause death and aortic-related death. The secondary end point was a composite of the outcomes of death from any cause, rupture, new dissection, retrograde type A aortic dissection, endoleak, and late reintervention. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. Weight-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimate with landmark analysis and weighted Cox model were performed to assess time-to-event outcomes.

RESULTS

In the inverse probability treatment weighting-adjusted population, the 30-day mortality was 1.5% in the acute TEVAR group and 0% in the subacute TEVAR group (P = .24). The incidence of 30-day adverse events occurred in 16.8% and 6.9% patients in the acute TEVAR and subacute TEVAR groups, respectively (P = .13). At 5 years, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-3.81; P = .39) and aortic-related death (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.34-3.60; P = .86) between the two groups. The composite outcomes occurred in 30 patients (23.0%) in the acute TEVAR group and 18 patients (22.3%) in the subacute TEVAR group, respectively (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36-1.25; P = .20). However, a landmark analysis of the composite outcomes indicated that there was a significant interaction between treatment effect and time (P_interaction = .01), with a significantly higher incidence of the composite outcomes in the acute TEVAR group compared with the subacute TEVAR group within 1 year (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.79; P = .02), and a comparable rate between 1 and 5 years (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.56-2.76; P = .59).

CONCLUSIONS

At the 5-year follow-up, no significant differences exist in the all-cause death and aortic-related death between acute and subacute TEVAR. However, acute TEVAR is associated with an increased rate of severe complications within 1 year, which suggests that performing TEVAR in the subacute phase of ATBAD may be the preferable option.

Risk factors for incomplete thrombosis in false lumen in sub-acute type B aortic dissection post-TEVAR

There is scarce information about the risk factors for incomplete false lumen thrombosis (FLT) among type B aortic dissection (AD) patients, particularly in the sub-acute phase following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We enrolled consecutive sub-acute type B AD patients at Xinqiao Hospital (Chongqing, China) from May 2010 to December 2019. Patients with severe heart failure, cancer, and myocardial infarction were excluded. The postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) data were extracted from the most recent follow-up aortic CTA. Multivariate logistic regressions were applied to identify the association between FLT and clinical or imaging factors. Fifty-five subjects were enrolled in our study. Twelve participants showed complete FLT, and 2 of these died during the follow-up, while 8 patients died in incomplete FLT group. In the multivariate analysis, maximum abdominal aorta diameter (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.016-1.417 p = 0.032) and the number of branches arising from the false lumen (FL) (OR 15.062, 95% 1.681-134.982 p = 0.015) were significantly associated with incomplete FLT. The C-statistics was 0.873 (95% CI 0.773-0.972) for the model. The FL diameter (p < 0.001) was significantly shorter following TEVAR, while the true lumen diameter (p < 0.001) and maximum abdominal aorta diameter (p = 0.011) were larger after the aortic repair. There were 21.8% of sub-acute type B AD patients presented complete FLT post-TEVAR. Maximum abdominal aorta diameter and the number of branches arising from the FL were independent risk factors for incomplete FLT. The true lumen diameter, maximum abdominal aorta diameter, and FL diameter changed notably following TEVAR.

TEVAR for complicated and uncomplicated type B aortic dissection-Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Type B aortic dissection (TBAD), is defined as a dissection involving the aorta distal to left subclavian artery with the ascending aorta and the aortic arch not affected. TBAD is classified due to the time frame and presence of complications. Complicated TBAD (co-TBAD) patients have a greater mortality rate than uncomplicated TBAD (un-TBAD) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is considered the gold-standard intervention for these clinical challenges.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review of the literature regarding TEVAR intervention in co-TBAD and un-TBAD. A comprehensive search was undertaken across four major databases and was evaluated and assessed until June 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 16,104 patients were included in the study (7772 patients co-TBAD and 8352 un-TBAD). A significantly higher proportion of comorbidities were seen in co-TBAD patients compared with un-TBAD. Acute dissection was more frequent in the co-TBAD group (73.55% vs. 66.91%), while chronic dissection was more common in un-TBAD patients (33.8% vs. 70.73%). Postprocedure stroke was higher in co-TBAD (5.85% vs. 3.92%; p < .01), while postprocedural renal failure was higher in un-TBAD patients (7.23 vs. 11.38%; p < .01). No difference was observed in in-hospital mortality however the 30 days mortality was higher in the co-TBAD group. One-year survival was higher in the uncomplicated group but this difference was not observed in the 5-year survival.

CONCLUSION

In our analysis we can appreciate that despite significantly higher comorbidities in the co-TBAD cohort, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups and the 5-year survival did not have any difference.

Adjunctive false lumen intervention for chronic aortic dissections is safe but offers unclear benefit

OBJECTIVE

Adjunctive false lumen embolization (FLE) with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with chronic aortic dissection is thought to induce FL thrombosis and favorable aortic remodeling. However, these data are derived from small single-institution experiences and the potential benefit of FLE remains unproven. In this study, we examined perioperative and midterm outcomes of patients with aortic dissection undergoing concomitant TEVAR and FLE.* METHODS: Patients 18 or older who underwent TEVAR for chronic aortic dissection with known FLE status in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database between January 2010 and February 2020 were included. Ruptured patients and emergent procedures were excluded. Patient characteristics, operative details and outcomes were analyzed by group: TEVAR with or without FLE. Primary outcomes were in-hospital post-operative complications and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included follow-up mean maximum aortic diameter change, rates of false lumen thrombosis, re-intervention rates, and mortality.

RESULTS

884 patients were included: 46 had TEVAR/FLE and 838 had TEVAR alone. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, prior aortic interventions, mean maximum pre-operative aortic diameter (5.1cm vs. 5.0cm, P=0.43), presentation symptomatology, or intervention indication. FLE was associated with significantly longer procedural times (178min vs. 146min, P=0.0002), increased contrast use (134mL vs. 113mL, P=0.02), and prolonged fluoroscopy time (34min vs. 21min, P<0.0001). However, FLE was not associated with a significant difference in post-operative complications (17.4% vs. 13.8%, P=0.51), length of stay (6.5 vs. 5.7 days, P=0.18), or in-hospital all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1.3%, P=1). In mid-term follow-up (median 15.5months, IQR 2.2-36.2 months), all-cause mortality trended lower, but was not significant (2.2% vs. 7.8%); and Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated no difference in overall survival between groups (P=0.23). By Cox regression analysis, post-operative complications had the strongest independent association with all-cause mortality (HR 2.65, 95% CI 1.56-4.5, P<0.001). In patients with available follow-up imaging and re-intervention status, mean aortic diameter change (n=337, -0.71cm vs. -0.69cm, P=0.64) and re-intervention rates (n=487, 10% vs. 11.4%, P=1) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive FLE, despite increased procedural times, can be performed safely for patients with chronic dissection without significantly higher overall perioperative morbidity or mortality. TEVAR/FLE demonstrates trends for improved survival and increased rates of FL thrombosis in the treated thoracic segment; however, given the lack of evidence to suggest a significant reduction in re-intervention rates or induction of more favorable aortic remodeling compared to TEVAR alone, the overall utility of this technique in practice remains unclear. Further investigation is needed to determine the most appropriate role for FLE in managing chronic aortic dissections.

False lumen embolization in chronic aortic dissection promotes thoracic aortic remodeling at midterm follow-up

OBJECTIVE

Failure of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in chronic aortic dissections can be partially explained by retrograde false lumen (FL) flow through distal re-entry tears. After implantation of a thoracic stent graft, FL thrombosis occurs in less than 50% of the cases. The objectives of this study were to describe the feasibility and outcomes of FL embolization in patients with chronic aortic dissections.

METHODS

Between June 2015 and January 2018, 27 patients (mean age, 61 ± 14 years) with chronic aortic dissection underwent FL embolization as an adjunct during or after TEVAR placement procedure. Indications for embolization were (1) symptomatic chronic aortic dissections with pain or rapid growth of aortic diameter (≥5 mm/y) requiring rapid exclusion of the aneurysm, (2) aneurysmal dilatation with persistent FL retrograde flow after TEVAR, and (3) large FL aneurysms (≥55 mm) that might lead to persistent retrograde flow. Twenty patients presented with type B chronic aortic dissections (74.1%) and seven presented a residual type A chronic aortic dissections (25.9%). Eight patients had a previous aortic arch replacement (29.6%). Six patients had previous repair with TEVAR (22.2%). The delay between the onset of dissection and the first endovascular repair was 47 months (range, 3-144). Spinal fluid drainage was used in 74.1% of cases (20/27 patients). Embolization devices included coils and vascular plugs.

RESULTS

The technical success rate was 100% (27/27). Complete spinal cord ischemia was observed in one patient (3.7%). There was one hospital death from pneumonia after zone 1 supra-aortic trunk debranching with TEVAR and embolization. After the index procedure, FL thrombosis was observed in 81.5% of patients (22/27) on late phase computed tomography angiography. Five patients required two or more embolization procedures, leading to a high rate of complete FL thrombosis (92.6%). One patient presented a type IB endoleak and one patient presented a type II endoleak. Radiologic follow-up was 20 ± 10 months. The maximum thoracic aortic diameter significantly decreased from 63 mm to 54 ± 10 mm (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Embolization of the FL of chronic aortic dissections is technically feasible with a low morbidity rate. The FL thrombosis is observed in the majority of case and promotes favorable thoracic aortic remodeling. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm these good results on the thoracic aorta and this technique may, therefore, improve the results of TEVAR in chronic aortic dissections.

Thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) versus open surgery for blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury

BACKGROUND

Blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is a life-threatening surgical emergency associated with mortality up to 8000 per year, most commonly caused by rapid acceleration/deceleration injury sustained through motor vehicle accident and/or blunt thoracic trauma. BTAI has high pre-hospital mortality following the primary injury, with only 10% to 15% of patients surviving long enough to reach the hospital. Open surgical repair had remained the standard treatment option for BTAI since successfully introduced in 1959. However, with technological advances, thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) offers an alternative treatment option for BTAI. TEVAR is a less invasive surgical approach for management of these already critical patients; many reports have described favourable early outcomes.Thoracic endovascular repair may appear to be superior to open repair for treatment of BTAI. However, its long-term results and efficacy remain unknown. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have provided evidence to support the superiority of the endovascular approach versus open repair in the treatment of BTAI. This review aims to address this matter. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether use of thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) for treatment of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is associated with reduced mortality and morbidity when compared with conventional open surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 20 August 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TEVAR and open surgery for BTAI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed all RCTs identified by the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no RCTs conducted to determine whether use of TEVAR for the treatment of BTAI is associated with reduced mortality and morbidity when compared to conventional open repair. Hence, we are unable to provide any evidence to guide the treatment option for this life-threatening condition. To perform a randomised controlled trial to clarify the optimal management of BTAI would be highly challenging due to the natural history of the condition. Despite the lack of RCT evidence, clinicians are moving forward with endovascular treatment of BTAI on the basis of meta-analyses of cohort studies and large clinical series.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair to treat uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection: The surgeon's dilemma to preventing future complications

Uncomplicated type B aortic dissections have traditionally been managed non-operatively with aggressive blood pressure control. However, the best medical treatment is associated with a considerable risk of disease progression to complicated dissection or aneurysmal degeneration of the affected aortic segment. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair could prevent long-term complications but, because the dissected aorta is vulnerable, it is a high-risk procedure performed in asymptomatic patient. Therefore, endovascular treatment is not a solution for all patients and it should be performed only in the subgroup prone to developing progression of the disease and future complications. A number of studies have suggested several prognostic factors of early or late adverse events such as the patency of the false lumen in the follow-up, an initial aortic diameter ≥4 cm with a patent false lumen, an initial false lumen diameter ≥22 mm in the proximal descending aorta, visceral involvement and recurrent or refractory pain or hypertension. Partial false lumen thrombosis and a proximal entry tear size >10 mm have also been suggested to be associated with an increased rate of aortic growth. We need randomised trials focused on these prognostic factors to reach level 1, class A recommendation for the optimal timing of intervention. Meanwhile, we have to discuss with the patient the pro and cons of this prophylactic, low-invasive but high-risk treatment to personalise medical care and provide the optimal risk-to-benefit ratio.

Comparison of thoracic endovascular aortic repair, open surgery and best medical treatment for type B aortic dissection: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatments of type B aortic dissection (TBAD) include thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), best medical treatment (BMT) and open surgery (OS). This meta-analysis was to compare these three strategies to evaluate which provides best outcomes.

METHODS

We searched clinical trials that compared treatment strategies for TBAD. The outcomes measures were 30-day/in-hospital mortality, long-term survival rate, paraplegia or paraparesis, renal failure, rupture, stroke, late re-intervention, late rupture and aneurismal dilatation/expansion.

RESULTS

Sixteen control trials covering 10,307 patients were evaluated. Meta-analysis showed that TEVAR provides preferable long-term survival rate (HR=0.71; 95% CI: 0.52-0.95), lower rate of late re-intervention (OR=0.33; 95% CI: 0.13-0.85), late rupture (OR=0.21; 95% CI: 0.10-0.43) and late aneurismal dilatation/expansion (OR=0.15; 95% CI: 0.04-0.63) compared with BMT. However, TEVAR seemed to be associated with higher stroke rate than BMT (OR=1.65; 95% CI: 1.21-2.23). 30-day/in-hospital mortality appeared to be lower in TEVAR (OR=0.49; 95% CI: 0.29-0.81) when compared with OS. In addition, OS induced higher 30-day/in-hospital mortality compared with BMT (OR=3.95, 95% CI: 1.56-10.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that TEVAR may be favorable in long-term outcomes and effectively provide morphologic advantages compared to BMT. However, there is a need for prophylactic measures against stroke in TEVAR. OS seems to be inferior to TEVAR both in short-term and long-term outcomes. Further studies especially randomized clinical trials are needed to comprehensively compare the efficacy between TEVAR and BMT.

Endovascular Stent-Graft Placement in Patients with Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection in China: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Improvements in stent-graft devices and increasing clinical experience with the technique have improved outcomes and expanded clinical indications in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection (AD) in China. However, the evolution of and modifications to stent grafts have not been reviewed. The aim of this study was to summarize all available published data on technical success, potential benefits, complications, stent evolution, and survival rates associated with endovascular stent-graft placements in patients with Stanford type B AD in China.

METHODS

We performed comprehensive searches of the Chinese-language medical literature in Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data and of the English-language medical literature in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. This systematic review was based on all retrospective studies assessing outcomes of Stanford type B AD treated with endovascular stent-graft placement in China.

RESULTS

A total of 153 retrospective studies that included 8,694 cases were analyzed in this study. Procedure success was reported in 99.7 ± 0.1% of patients. Overall complications were reported in 19.1 ± 0.6% of patients. Postoperative endoleaks occurred in 7.2 ± 0.3% of patients. Major complications were reported in 3.2 ± 0.2% of patients, with a neurological complication rate of 1.3 ± 0.1%. Periprocedural stroke occurred more frequently than did paraplegia (0.8 ± 0.1% vs. 0.1 ± 0.04%). Overall complications were significantly greater in patients treated with first-generation stents than in those treated with second-generation stents (25.1 ± 1.2% vs. 9.5 ± 0.9%, P < 0.001). The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.6 ± 0.1%. In addition, 1.8 ± 0.2% of patients died during a mean follow-up period of 29.4 ± 13.5 months. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of the overall survival rate were 99.0 ± 0.1% at 30 days, 98.5 ± 0.2% at 6 months, 98.4 ± 0.2% at 1 year, 98.1 ± 0.2% at 2 years, and 97.9 ± 0.2% at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular stent-graft placement is feasible and has a high technique success rate as well as favorable neurological complication and survival rates when used to treat Stanford type B AD. The new generation of stent grafts appears to have favorable in-hospital and follow-up outcomes.

[Pre- and postoperative imaging of type B aortic dissection]

Type B aortic dissections are serious diseases with a 60 to 80 % 5-year survival rate. Although typically managed with a medical treatment, surgery may be necessary in the acute/subacute or the chronic phase if significant complications are encountered. For these patients, CT angiography is the first-line imaging modality, used for indicating and preparing the surgical procedure as well as for follow-up. Physicians in charge of these patients should be familiar with the key reading points. Visceral malperfusion is the most common acute complication, while aneurysmal dilatation of the false lumen is the most common chronic complication, with surgical management generally indicated when the axial diameter of the aorta exceeds 55mm. Endovascular treatment tends to replace open surgery: it requires precise measurements and identification of the entry tear (contribution of 4D-MRA).

Initial clinical experience with the Zenith alpha stent-graft

PURPOSE

To assess safety and short-term efficacy of endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta with the new Zenith Alpha stent-graft.

METHODS

Between August 2010 and May 2014, 33 patients (21 men; mean age 73.2±9.0 years) were treated Zenith Alpha stent-graft (group ZA). Outcomes of this group were compared with those of 34 patients (25 men; mean age 70.3±8.5 years) treated contemporaneously with the Zenith TX-2 for the same pathologies (group TX). The primary outcome measure was technical success. Data on iliac tortuosity, minimum access vessel diameter, and previous unsuccessful treatment with other endografts was also recorded.

RESULTS

Technical success was 93.9% in group ZA and 91.2% in group TX (p=0.67). There was no case of surgical death or conversion to open repair in either group. Two (6%) type I endoleaks occurred in group ZA and 3 (9%) in group TX (p=0.67). Three patients died within 30 days in group ZA vs. none in group TX (p=0.07). Mean minimum access vessel diameter was significantly smaller (5.07 vs. 6.65 mm, p=0.002) and iliac tortuosity indices significantly higher in group ZA (1.34 vs. 1.25, p=0.02). Access vessel complications occurred in 1 (3%) patient in group ZA and 4 (12%) patients in group TX (p=0.17). Significantly more patients in group ZA (6, 18%) were unsuccessfully treated previously with other endografts vs. none in group TX (p=0.01).

CONCLUSION

The new Zenith Alpha appears to be equally as safe and efficacious as the Zenith TX-2 while being used in patients with demanding access vessel morphology.

Two Cases of Aortic Intimal Intussusception During Endovascular Repair of an Acute Type B Dissection

Purpose: To raise awareness of a previously undescribed complication of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic dissection that can lead to acute aortic occlusion and to highlight that early recognition, excision of the intimal flap, and open aortic repair can be lifesaving. Case Report: Two patients underwent TEVAR for acute type B dissections complicated by abdominal malperfusion syndrome. During stent-graft deployment, the intimal flap circumferentially detached from its origin proximally with subsequent intussusception, leading to acute aortic occlusion. Both complications were recognized intraoperatively with immediate conversion to open aortic reconstruction and intimal flap excision. The first patient required an infrarenal aortobi-iliac bypass, while the second had an open aortic fenestration and bovine pericardial patch repair of the aortotomy. Their postoperative courses were uneventful. Follow-up imaging revealed excellent stent-graft approximation without endoleak and thrombosis of the false lumen. Conclusion: Aortic intimal flap detachment and intussusception is a rare but potentially fatal complication of TEVAR for acute complicated aortic dissection. Quick diagnosis and a low threshold for conversion to open repair are critical in achieving a successful outcome.

Persistent Intraluminal Pressure After Endovascular Stent Grafting for Type B Aortic Dissection

OBJECTIVES

Despite technically successful thoracic endovascular stent graft repair (TEVAR) in patients with Stanford Type B aortic dissection (TBAD), long-term follow up studies have shown that the false lumen may continue to dilate. The aim of this study was to analyze the possible mechanisms leading to such changes from a hemodynamic perspective.

METHODS

Twenty-eight ex vivo fresh porcine TBAD models (Mo A: 10; Model B: 12; Model C: 6) were established to simulate three clinical situations: Model A with patent false lumen (pre-TEVAR); Model B with distal re-entry only (post-TEVAR), and Model C with thrombus filling in the false lumen and a distal re-entry (chronic stage of post-TEVAR). Synchronous pressure waveforms were taken from both the true and the false lumen. True lumen and false lumen pressure differences were calculated for each model as four indices: systolic index (SI), diastolic index (DI), mean pressure index (MPI) and area under curve index (AUCI). These indices were compared between the three models.

RESULTS

False lumen pressure and corresponding pressure-accumulating effects were significantly higher in Model A than in Model C: SI (99.9% vs. 189.4%; p < .001); MPI and AUCI (99.5% vs. 128.2%; 99.5% vs. 128%; p < .001). The SI, MPI, and AUCI were significantly higher in Model B compared with Model C. The differences between the four indices were not significant between Model A and B. The false lumen area under curve (AUC) in Model C was merely lowered by 20% compared with its true lumen (67.5 mmHg vs. 85.2 mmHg).

CONCLUSION

The false lumen pressure remained unchanged in the non-thrombosed segment with patent blood flow after the primary entry tear sealed. Intraluminal pressure reduction in the thrombosed false lumen was significant. However, nearly 80% of the pressure remained in the thrombosed false lumen. If this high intra-thrombus pressure persists, it may contribute to delayed aneurysmal formation after endovascular treatment.

Malperfusion syndromes in aortic dissections

Aortic dissection remains a challenging clinical scenario, especially when complicated by peripheral malperfusion. Improvements in medical imaging have furthered understanding of the pathophysiology of malperfusion events in association with aortic dissection, including the elucidation of different mechanisms of branch vessel obstruction. Despite these advances, malperfusion syndrome remains a deadly entity with significant mortality. This review presents the latest knowledge regarding the pathogenesis of aortic dissection complicated by malperfusion syndrome, and discusses the diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for management of this vicious entity.