Reintervention after endovascular repair for aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Incidence, Predictors, and Implications of Secondary Aortic Intervention Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Dissection

BACKGROUND

Secondary aortic intervention (SAI) following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is not uncommon. However, a satisfactory management system has not been established for these patients. We aimed to report our single-center experience with SAI after prior TEVAR for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

From January 2010 to May 2017, 860 eligible patients with TBAD underwent TEVAR. One hundred seven (12.4%) patients required SAI, either endovascularly (n=76) or surgically (n=31). The main indications for SAI were entry flow (n=58 [54.2%]), aneurysm expansion of the proximal or remote aorta (n=26 [24.3%]), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n=11 [10.3%]), distal stent-graft-induced new entry tear (n=6 [5.6%]), and stent migration (n=4 [3.7%]). The Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine the degree of freedom from SAI and the prognosis. Cox proportional hazards were used to screen for risk factors for SAI and poor prognosis.

RESULTS

The overall 30-day mortality rate after SAI was 4.7% (n=5): endovascular (n=2 [2.6%]) vs open surgery (n=3 [9.7%]; p=0.145). The cumulative survival rates with or without SAI were 86.3%±3.6% vs 95.7%±0.8% at 3 years and 82.0%±4.2% vs 92.2%±1.1% at 5 years, respectively (log-rank p<0.001). Although no significant difference in survival was observed, the incidence of SAI was significantly greater in patients who underwent TEVAR during the chronic phase (acute [11.6%] vs subacute [9.6%] vs chronic [27.8]; p<0.001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that prior TEVAR in the chronic phase (hazard ratio [HR]=1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03-2.90; p=0.039), maximum aortic diameter (HR=1.05, 95% CI=1.04-1.07; p<0.001), and arch involvement (HR=1.48, 95% CI=1.01-2.18; p=0.048) were predictors of the incidence of SAI. In addition, the maximum aortic diameter was demonstrated to be the only risk factor for prognosis after adjusting for confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for chronic TBAD patients should be reconsidered. Open surgery is preferable for those with proximal progression, whereas endovascular treatment is more suitable for distal lesions. Close surveillance and timely reintervention after TEVAR, whether via endovascular techniques or open surgery, are necessary to prevent devastating complications.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The management of patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is challenging. We summarized our single-center experience regarding secondary aortic intervention after TEVAR for TBAD. We found that TEVAR for chronic TBAD patients should be carefully evaulated, and open surgery is recommended for those with proximal progession, while endovascular treatment is more preferable for distal lesions.

Late Endograft Migration After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of this systematic review was to report the cumulative incidence of endograft migration (EM), as well as the morbidity, reintervention rates, and mortality related to EM. This study aimed to provide evidence-based data on patient-relevant sequelae of EM after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) performed using contemporary aortic endografts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic electronic search of literature in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. The pooled synthesis of outcomes was performed using the inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Seven prospective non-randomized and 4 retrospective studies, including a total of 1783 patients presenting 70 EMs, were considered for the quantitative analysis. The pooled rate of EM was 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%; range, 0.2%-11%; I2=82%); pooled morbidity rate was 31% (95% CI, 12%-59%; range, 0%-100%; I2=64%) and pooled reintervention rate was 32% (95% CI, 15%-56%; range, 0%-100%; I2=55%). The pooled mortality rate due to EM was 5% (95% CI, 1%-21%; range, 0%-40%; I2=24%).

CONCLUSION

For the first time, this meta-analysis provides pooled reference estimates of EM after TEVAR. Thus, the results hold the potential to further characterize EM after TEVAR. The clinical relevance of EM is underlined by its association with high rates of endoleak-related morbidity, reintervention, and mortality. Close standardized surveillance after TEVAR for early detection of EM and prophylaxis of its sequelae is essential.

Reinterventions after TEVAR

Thoracic cardiovascular aortic repair is an alternative procedure to open surgery for degenerative thoracic aortic aneurysm and thoracic aortic dissection. The advancements in graft design and imaging techniques have expanded its utility. However, the long-term patency of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) graft is still a concern. This review delves into the literature on re-intervention following TEVAR, highlighting factors that influence the re-intervention rate.

International RELAY®, branched outcomes - designed to respect and repair the thoracic aorta: A comparative analysis between double and triple branched configurations

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aortic arch repair (EAR) has emerged as an alternative to open surgical repair. A growing interest in endovascular repair techniques for aortic arch aneurysms and dissection has been met with a focus on the clinical efficacy of EAR devices. We present multicentre comparative data on the clinical outcomes associated with EAR using the double- and triple-branched configurations of the RELAY™ (Terumo Aortic, Scotland, UK) endograft.

METHODS

Multicentre data on EAR procedures, carried out from January 2019 to January 2022, using the double- and triple-branched RELAY™ endograft were collected prospectively. Follow-up data were collected at 30 days, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months postoperative. Retrospective descriptive analysis, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis were carried out on procedural and follow-up data.

RESULTS

A total of 131 patients were included in the series. In total, 103 and 28 patients were treated with the double-branched and triple-branched RELAY™ endograft, respectively. Over the 24-month follow-up period, zero mortality, cases of stroke, or reinterventions were recorded in the triple-branched group. Four mortalities, 19 disabling strokes, and 50 reinterventions were recorded in the double-branched group within 30 postoperative days. Target vessel patency was maintained in all patients in the triple-branched group, while vessel patency was maintained in 74.0% of patients in the double-branched group.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes associated with the triple-branched group are consistent with those reported in the literature. Our data suggest that EAR with the RELAY™ endograft is associated with favourable clinical outcomes and clinical efficacy. Further comparative research into EAR devices is needed.

In Marfan Syndrome and Related Diseases, STABILISE Technique Should Be Used with Care: Results from a Volumetric Comparative Study of Endovascular Treatment for Aortic Dissection

Objectives: Aortic dissection in patients with Marfan and related syndromes (HTAD) is a serious pathology whose treatment by thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to assess the results of the TEVAR for aortic dissection in patients with HTAD as compared to a young population without HTAD. Methods: The study received the proper ethical oversight. We performed an observational exposed (confirmed HTAD) vs. non-exposed (<65 years old) study of TEVAR-treated patients. The preoperative, 1 year, and last available CT scans were analyzed. The thoracic and abdominal aortic diameters, aortic length, and volumes were measured. The entry tears and false lumen (FL) status were assessed. The demographic, clinical, and anatomic data were collected during the follow-up. Results: Between 2011 and 2021, 17 patients were included in the HTAD group and 22 in the non-HTAD group. At 1 year, the whole aortic volume increased by +21.2% in the HTAD group and by +0.2% the non-HTAD groups, p = 0.005. An increase in the whole aortic volume > 10% was observed in ten cases (58.8%) in the HTAD group and in five cases (22.7%) in the non-HTAD group (p = 0.022). FL thrombosis was achieved in nine cases (52.9%) in the HTAD group vs. twenty (90.9%) cases in the non-HTAD group (p < 0.01). The risk factors for unfavorable anatomical evolution were male gender and the STABILISE technique. With a linear model, we observed a significantly different aortic volume evolution between the two groups (p < 0.01) with the STABILISE technique; this statistical difference was not found in the TEVAR subgroup. In the HTAD patients, there was a significant difference in the total aortic volume evolution progression between the patients treated with the STABILISE technique and the patients treated with TEVAR (+160.1 ± 52.3% vs. +47 ± 22.5%, p < 0.01 and +189.5 ± 92.5% vs. +58.6 ± 34.8%, p < 0.01 at 1 year and at the end of follow-up, respectively). Conclusions: TEVAR in the HTAD patients seemed to be associated with poorer anatomical outcomes at 1 year. This result was strongly related to the STABILISE technique which should be considered with care in these specific patients.

Deep Learning Prediction for Distal Aortic Remodeling After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop a deep learning model for predicting distal aortic remodeling after proximal thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) using computed tomography angiography (CTA).

METHODS

A total of 147 patients with acute or subacute TBAD who underwent proximal TEVAR at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. The boundary of aorta was manually segmented, and the point clouds of each aorta were obtained. Prediction of negative aortic remodeling or reintervention was accomplished by a convolutional neural network (CNN) and a point cloud neural network (PC-NN), respectively. The discriminatory value of the established models was mainly evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the test set.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 34.0 months (range: 12-108 months). During follow-up, a total of 25 (17.0%) patients were identified as having negative aortic remodeling, and 16 (10.9%) patients received reintervention. The AUC (0.876) by PC-NN for predicting negative aortic remodeling was superior to that obtained by CNN (0.612, p=0.034) and similar to the AUC by PC-NN combined with clinical features (0.884, p=0.92). As to reintervention, the AUC by PC-NN was significantly higher than that by CNN (0.805 vs 0.579; p=0.042), and AUCs by PC-NN combined with clinical features and PC-NN alone were comparable (0.836 vs 0.805; p=0.81).

CONCLUSION

The CTA-based deep learning algorithms may assist clinicians in automated prediction of distal aortic remodeling after TEVAR for acute or subacute TBAD.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Negative aortic remodeling is the leading cause of late reintervention after proximal thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD), and possesses great challenge to endovascular repair. Early recognizing high-risk patients is of supreme importance for optimizing the follow-up interval and therapy strategy. Currently, clinicians predict the prognosis of these patients based on several imaging signs, which is subjective. The computed tomography angiography-based deep learning algorithms may incorporate abundant morphological information of aorta, provide with a definite and objective output value, and finally assist clinicians in automated prediction of distal aortic remodeling after TEVAR for acute or subacute TBAD.

Evaluation and Management of Complications of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair of the Thoracic Aorta

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the standard of care for descending thoracic aortic pathology as the procedure has a historically low rate of reintervention and a high rate of success. However, TEVAR can be associated with complications such as endoleak, upper extremity limb ischemia, cerebrovascular ischemia, spinal cord ischemia, and post-implantation syndrome. An 80-year-old man with a history of complex thoracic aortic aneurysms underwent repair of a large thoracic aneurysm with a frozen elephant trunk procedure in 2019 at an outside institution. The proximal aortic graft extended to the arch and the innominate and left carotid artery were implanted into the distal portion of the graft. The endograft, extending from the proximal graft to the descending thoracic aorta, was fenestrated to maintain left subclavian artery flow. In an attempt to gain a seal at the fenestration, a Viabahn graft (Gore, Flagstaff, AZ, USA) was inserted. A type III endoleak was identified postoperatively at the fenestration, and a second Viabahn graft was required to gain a seal during the initial hospitalization. In 2020, an endoleak persisted at the fenestration on follow-up imaging, but the aneurysmal sac was stable. No intervention was recommended. The patient later presented to our institution with three days of chest pain. A type III endoleak at the level of the subclavian fenestration persisted with significant enlargement of the aneurysm sac. The patient underwent an urgent repair of the endoleak. This consisted of covering the fenestration with an endograft and left carotid to subclavian bypass. Subsequently, the patient developed a transient ischemic attack (TIA) due to kinking and extrinsic compression by the large aneurysm sac of the proximal left common carotid artery, requiring a right carotid to left carotid-axillary graft bypass. This report with a literature review discusses TEVAR complications and outlines methods to approach them. TEVAR complications and their management should be firmly understood to improve overall treatment outcomes.

Reintervention after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Data are scarce regarding the incidence, reasons, potential risk factors, and long-term outcomes of reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2020, 238 patients with uncomplicated TBAD who received TEVAR were analyzed retrospectively. The clinical baseline data, aorta anatomy, dissection characteristics, and details of the TEVAR procedure were evaluated and compared. A competing-risk regression model was used to estimate the cumulative incidences of reintervention. The multivariate Cox model was used to identify the independent risk factors.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 68.6 months. A total of 27 (11.3%) cases of reintervention were observed. The competing-risk analyses showed that the 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidences of reintervention were 5.07%, 7.08%, and 14.0%, respectively. Reasons for reintervention included endoleak (25.9%), aneurysmal dilation (22.2%), retrograde type A aortic dissection (18.5%), distal stent-graft-induced new entry and false lumen expansion (18.5%), and dissection progression and/or malperfusion (14.8%). Multivariable Cox analysis demonstrated that a larger initial maximal aortic diameter (Hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% Confidence interval [CI], 1.13-2.69, p = 0.011) and increased proximal landing zone oversizing (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.47, p = 0.033) were the significant risk factors for reintervention. Long-term survival rates were comparable between patients with or without reintervention (p = 0.915).

CONCLUSIONS

Reintervention after TEVAR in patients with uncomplicated TBAD is not uncommon. A larger initial maximal aortic diameter and excessive proximal landing zone oversizing are associated with the second intervention. Reintervention does not significantly affect long-term survival.

Endovascular Reintervention for Stent-Graft Dislocation after Open Surgical Conversion for Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treated by Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Complex anatomical restrictions can lead to further interventions after the emergence of a postoperative aneurysm enlargement in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA). A 75-year-old male underwent a TEVAR for a Crawford extent I TAAA. The main device and the distal extension were placed using a fenestrated technique, outside of the instructions for use. The aneurysm expanded because of an endoleak and stent graft migration; and was surgically repaired by fully salvaging the previous endografts 38 months after the first TEVAR. However, the distal extension, which was the proximal anastomosis site with a prosthetic graft, became completely dislocated from the main device eight months after the open surgical conversion, resulting again in the enlargement of the aneurysm. An additional TEVAR was successfully performed to correct the dislocated stent graft. An appropriate treatment strategy is crucial to prevent multiple reinterventions for TAAA with complex anatomical restrictions.

Peripheral Eosinophil Count Is Associated With the Prognosis of Patients With Type B Aortic Dissection Undergoing Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background Eosinophil count (EOS) has been proposed to provide prognostic information in multiple cardiovascular disorders. However, few researchers have investigated the predictive value of EOS for patients with type B aortic dissection who had thoracic endovascular repair. Methods and Results The authors reviewed the records of 912 patients with type B aortic dissection who were treated with thoracic endovascular repair in Changhai Hospital, Shanghai. By using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, patients were divided into 2 groups based on the admission EOS cutoff value (<7.4×10⁶/L [n=505] and ≥7.4×10⁶/L [n=407]). To reduce selection bias, propensity score matching was applied. Multivariable regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were performed to assess the association between EOS and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we investigated nonlinear correlations between EOS and outcomes using general additive models with restricted cubic splines. In the matched population, lower EOS was associated with significantly higher 30-day mortality (4.1% vs 0%, P=0.007). There was no statistically difference in 30-day adverse events between the 2 groups (all P>0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that patients with an EOS <7.4×10⁶/L had a higher incidence of 1-year all-cause death (7.95% vs. 2.34%, P=0.008) and aortic-related death (5.98% vs 1.81%, P=0.023) than those with higher EOS. Multivariable Cox analysis showed that continuous EOS was independently associated with 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 3.23 [95% CI, 1.20-8.33], P=0.019). In addition, we discovered a nonlinear association between EOS and 1-year outcomes. Conclusions Lower admission EOS values predict higher short- and long-term mortality after thoracic endovascular repair.

From The RELAY® Family - A Story of Single Branched International Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Advances in surgery over the last few decades has led to the development and widespread utilisation of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). TEVAR, due to its minimally invasive nature and potential superior outcomes, is now becoming a key focus of interest in treating pathologies of the aortic arch, which has traditionally been treated with open surgical repair (OSR). We present our findings of our international multi-centre dataset documenting the efficacy of the single-branched RELAY™ endograft in terms of technical success, post-operative outcomes, and reintervention rates.

METHODS

Prospective data was collected and retrospectively analysed with descriptive and distributive analysis between January 2019 and January 2022 from 17 patients treated with RELAY™ single-branched endoprostheses from centres across Europe. Follow up data from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively was included. Patient follow up was evaluated in terms of post-operative outcomes, target vessel patency and reintervention rates.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all 17 patients (100%) and there were no postoperative disabling or non-disabling strokes in our single-branched RELAY™ cohort. The target vessel patency remained 100% during the first 30 days post-operatively, however, by the end of the follow-up period (24 months), target vessel patency was achieved in 93.7% of the patients. There were no reinterventions or deaths during the full study duration using the single-branched RELAY™ stent-graft.

CONCLUSION

These results with the single branched RELAY™ stent graft demonstrate favourable outcomes in comparison to the literature and demonstrate the feasibility of treatment of aortic pathology with this single-branched graft in the future. Further studies with larger patient cohorts will help us to accumulate evidence for the feasibility of the single branched RELAY™ stent graft for aortic arch surgery in the future.

Does endovascular duration impact clinical outcomes in aortic arch repair? The RELAY™ branched international stance

Background

The high mortality and morbidity rates in surgical aortic arch repair are a barrier to therapy for a considerable proportion of patients with aortic arch aneurysm or dissection. There is hence a demand for the development and adoption of a minimally invasive alternative to aortic arch repair, such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Procedural duration is a key factor in the pathogenesis of complications in surgical aortic arch repair. Herein, we evaluate whether endovascular duration impacts neurological outcomes, target vessel patency, and reintervention rates in aortic arch TEVAR with RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK), which is specifically developed for on-label use within the aortic arch.

Methods

Prospective data was collected between January 2019 and January 2022 on the clinical outcomes of TEVAR for aortic arch dissection and aneurysm with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe. They were then retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow-up data on the incidence of disabling stroke (DS), target vessel patency, and reintervention from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperative was included in the analysis.

Results

147 (99.3%) of all 148 cases were successful. Over the 24 month follow-up period, in total 6 (4.1%) patients suffered DS, 24 (16.3%) required reintervention, and target vessel patency was exhibited in 118 (80.2%) patients. The modal endovascular duration was 100-150 min (in 64.6%, n = 95 cases). Analysis revealed that endovascular duration was associated with a lower likelihood of reintervention at 30 days, 6-, and 12 months (P = 0.011, P = 0.019, P = 0.037), a greater likelihood of target vessel patency at 6- and 24 months (P = 0.032, P = 0.035). No relationship between endovascular duration and DS was revealed.

Discussion

The data demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is associated with promising clinical outcomes for on-label aortic arch TEVAR. The underlying mechanism linking endovascular duration and reintervention rates, or target vessel patency is likely multifactorial and complex. Given that TEVAR is carried out under general anesthetic only, it is unlikely that prolonged procedural duration has any major effect over neurological outcomes for arch TEVAR.

Open Thoracoabdominal Aortic Procedures following Endovascular Intervention

Open conversion of thoracoabdominal aortic (TAA) disease after failed attempts of endovascular treatment is increasingly required. The main causes are endoleak, endograft failure, infection, disease progression, or persistent false lumen perfusion in dissected aortas. Mortality and morbidity rates are high, higher than after standard TAA open repair. Therefore, this surgery should be performed only in dedicated centers by experienced teams. Specific perioperative organ protection protocols, as well as surgical techniques, are crucial to guarantee acceptable results.

RELAYTM Branched–International Results of Vessel Patency and Reintervention

Background

Surgical intervention remains the mainstay treatment for aortic arch aneurysm and dissection, but the high mortality and morbidity rates have led to a need for the development of minimally invasive alternatives to arch reconstruction. RELAY™ Branched (Terumo Aortic, Inchinnan, UK) represents a viable option for complex endovascular aortic arch repair. We present multi-center data from Europe documenting the efficacy of the endograft in terms of its target vessel patency and reintervention rates.

Methods

Prospective data collected between January 2019 and January 2022 associated with patients treated with RELAY™ single-, double-, and triple-branched endoprostheses from centers across Europe was retrospectively analyzed with descriptive and distributive analysis. Follow up data from 30 days and 6-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively was included. Patient follow up was evaluated in terms of target vessel patency and reintervention rates.

Results

Technical success was achieved in 147 (99.3%) cases. Over 24 months period, target vessel patency was maintained in 80.2% (n = 118) of patients. Target vessel cannulation was achieved in 146 (99.3%) cases. Over the 24-month follow-up period, 30 reintervention procedures were required, of which 29 (97%) took place within the South Europe region which accounted for 19.6% (n = 29) of total cases. Zero reinterventions were required in patients that were treated with single- or triple-branched endoprostheses.

Discussion

The data presented herein demonstrates that RELAY™ Branched is a technically efficacious device for endovascular aortic arch repair and is associated with favorable target vessel patency and reintervention rates. Key design features of the endoprosthesis and good perioperative management can contribute greatly to mitigating reintervention and loss of vessel patency following endovascular aortic arch repair.

A methylprednisolone-loaded and core-shell nanofiber-covered stent-graft to prevent inflammation and reduce degradation in aortic dissection

Background

Stent-graft-induced inflammation is an independent risk factor for adverse aortic remodeling in aortic dissection. In this context, we asked that whether a methylprednisolone-loaded stent-graft could reduce inflammation and degradation.

Methods

First, a coaxial electrospinning technique was used to create a core-shell film with methylprednisolone encapsulated in the inner of poly (L-lactide-co-caprolactone) nanofibers for controllable drug release. Second, an in vitro study was conducted to evaluate the biocompatibility of the nanofiber meshes. Third, the porcine aortic dissection model was developed to investigate the therapeutic effects of the methylprednisolone-loaded stent-graft.

Results

The results demonstrated that the nanofiber-coated film with a methylprednisolone-poly-caprolactone core layer and a poly (L-lactide-co-caprolactone) shell layer could effectively sustain drug release in vitro. In vivo study showed that the methylprednisolone-loaded stent-graft could reduce degradtion of aortic dissection by regulating inflammation.

Conclusions

Overall, the controllable drug release by coaxial nanofiber is a promising approach to alleviate aortic inflammation and promote aortic remodeling after stent-graft implantation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40824-022-00259-5.

STABILISE; treatment of aortic dissection, a single Centre experience

Purpose

To outline the process of the STABILISE technique and its use; reporting patient outcomes and midterm follow up for complicated aortic dissection.

Materials and methods

Single centre retrospective analysis from January 2011 to January 2021 using the STABILISE technique which utilises balloon assistance to facilitate intimal disruption and promote aortic relamination.

Results

Sixteen patients underwent endovascular aortic repair with the STABILISE technique for aortic dissection over the study period. Fourteen patients (14/16; 88%) had acute dissection. Two of 16 (12%) were chronic. The median age of the patient cohort was 61 years (range 32–80 years) and consisted of a male majority (n = 11; 69%). The median time from diagnosis to intervention was 5 days (1–115 days; IQR 1–17.3). More than half (56%) had surgical repair of a acute type A aortic dissection prior to radiological intervention. The procedure was technically successful with no procedural mortality. Two patients were lost to follow up and two died in the post-operative period. Twelve patients had ongoing follow up with an average number of 2.9 ± 1.6 scans performed. Follow up was available in thirteen patients (81%) with a median follow up period of 1097 days (IQR 707–1657). The rate of re-intervention (n = 2/16; 13%) requiring additional stenting was in line with published re-intervention data (15%). Follow up showed a reduction in false lumen size following treatment with total luminal dimensions remaining stable over the follow-up period.

Conclusion

The STABILISE technique as a procedure for complicated aortic dissection, either acute or chronic, appears safe with stable mid-term aortic remodelling and patient outcomes.

Level of evidence

Level 3, Retrospective cohort study.

The Mini-Cross Prefenestration for Endovascular Repair of Aortic Arch Pathologies

Objective: To examine the feasibility, integrity, efficacy, and safety of endovascular repair of the aortic arch pathologies with the mini-cross prefenestration (MCPF) on stent grafts.

Methods: First, to prove the feasibility of the MCPF, an in-vitro prefenestration experiment was conducted. Second, to examine the integrity of the MCPF stent grafts, a fatigue test was conducted. Then, the membranes and metal structures of stent grafts were examined by light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Third, a clinical experiment was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of this novel technique (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04544579).

Results: All the 12 branch stents were successfully implanted and flared in vitro. After the fatigue test stimulating a 5-year cardiac cycle, no obvious disintegration or fracture was found in light microscopy or SEM. From December 2017 to February 2020, 26 patients with left subclavian arteries and/or left common carotid arteries involved received the novel technique. The endovascular repair with the MCPF was successfully performed on all the 26 (100%) patients. Eighteen (69.2%) patients underwent the reconstruction of the left subclavian artery (LSCA) only. The fenestrations of both the LSCA and left common carotid artery (LCCA) were conducted in 8 (30.8%) patients. Median operative time was 120 [interquartile range (IQR), 95–137.5] min and median revascularization time of the LSCA and LCCA was 30.5 (IQR, 22.8–42.0) s and 20.0 (IQR, 18.0–32.0) s separately. During the median follow-up duration of 38.9 (range, 18.8–44.2) months, one case needed an open surgery because of retrograde type A aortic dissection 3 months after implantation and no other complications or mortality occurred. The maximum aortic diameters were significantly decreased in patients with thoracic aortic dissection and thoracic aortic aneurysm (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The existing evidence demonstrated the safety, rapid branch artery revascularization, and positive aortic remodeling of the novel technique. Long-term observation is warranted to prove the durability.

Endovascular repair of acute complicated type B aortic dissection-systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term survival and reintervention

Background

Thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is considered the first-line therapy in the repair of acute complicated type B aortic dissection (AC-BAD). Given the difficulty of designing randomized trials in this surgical cohort, long-term outcome data is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a complete aggregation of reported long-term survival and freedom from reintervention of AC-BAD patients based on the existing literature.

Methods

Three databases were searched from date of database inception to January 2021. The relevant references were identified and baseline cohort characteristics, survival and freedom from reintervention were extracted. The primary endpoints were survival and freedom from reintervention, whilst secondary endpoints were post-operative outcomes such as cord ischemia and endoleak. Kaplan-Meier curves were digitized and aggregated as per established procedure.

Results

A total of 2,812 references were identified in the literature search for review, with 46 selected for inclusion. A total of 2,565 patients were identified, of which 1,920 (75%) were male. The mean age of the cohort was 59.8±5.8. Actuarial survival at 2, 4, 6 and 10 years was 87.5%, 83.2%, 78.5% and 69.7%, respectively. Freedom from all secondary reintervention at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 years was 74.7%, 69.1%, 65.7%, 63.9% and 60.9%, respectively. When accounting for study quality, actuarial survival at 2, 4, 6 and 8 years was 85.4%, 79.1%, 69.8% and 63.1%, respectively. Freedom from all secondary reintervention at 2, 4, 6 and 8 years was 73.2%, 67.6%, 63.7% (maintained), respectively.

Conclusions

TEVAR is associated with promising long-term survival extended to 10 years, though rates of freedom from reintervention remain an ongoing point for improvement. Randomized controlled trials comparing endovascular with open repair in the setting of acute, complicated type B aortic dissection are needed.

Aortic-related Readmission after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection Patients: A Single-center Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of and risk factors for aortic-related readmission after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Data from TBAD patients who underwent TEVAR from 2009-2018 at a Chinese tertiary center were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Enrolled patients were categorized into two groups according to whether aortic-related readmission occurred during follow-up, which was defined as hospitalization at least once after the initial procedure due to events that were related to or caused by aortic dissection or the initial procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 1 288 TBAD patients were enrolled, and 99 patients experienced aortic-related readmissions (7.7%), among whom chronic patients had the highest readmission rate (9.8%). The yearly proportion of readmission during the first year after initial procedure revealed a decreasing trend with a -9.7% annual percentage change. Seventy-one patients underwent reintervention (71.7%). Distal aneurysmal degeneration (43.7%) and distal stent graft-induced new entries (32.4%) were two major causes for reintervention. Fourteen patients in the reintervention subgroup underwent a second reintervention (19.7%). In-hospital mortality was 1.0% during the readmission and 14.3% during the second readmission. The overall survival was comparable between two groups (p=.93).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlighted the importance of surveillance after initial procedure for TBAD patients with potential risk factors for aortic-related readmission, and the predisposition of patients with reintervention to multiple readmissions deserves attention.

A 10-Year Single-Center Experience With the GORE TAG Conformable Thoracic Stent Graft in the Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Disease

Objective:

The aim of this study was to report 10-year real-world single-center experience with the GORE TAG conformable thoracic aortic graft (CTAG), focusing on rupture-free survival, aortic-related reintervention, and device-related complications during midterm and long-term follow-up (FU).

Methods:

This retrospective study analyzes results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) performed between January 2009 and December 2018. Out of 419 TEVAR procedures within this period, 194 patients (male 57.2%, 111/194), with a mean age of 65 ± 13 years, were treated with the CTAG device. Indication for TEVAR was a thoracic aortic aneurysm in 24.7% (48/194), type B aortic dissection in 32.5% (63/194), penetrating aortic ulcer 15.5% (30/194), and miscellaneous 27.3% (53/194). Emergently were operated 43.8% (85/194) patients. Median follow-up (FU) including computed tomography imaging was 43.5 months (Q1-Q3: 8.6–67.0) and was completed in 91.2% (177/194) of patients.

Results:

Overall survival rates were 75.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.76–0.70]) and 56.6% (95% CI = [0.57–0.50]) at 12 and 60 months, respectively. Cumulative incidence for aortic rupture was 11.9% (95% CI = [0.07–0.17]) at 60 and 90 months, respectively. Cumulative incidence for aortic-related reintervention was 27.5% (95% CI = [0.21–0.34]) at 60 and 90 months. Cumulative incidence for migration was 2.8% (95% CI = [0.004–0.05]) and 3.9% (95% CI = [0.007–0.07]) at 60 and 90 months, respectively. New endograft infections or material fatigue were not observed.

Conclusions:

The herein reported 10-year real-world single-center experience with the CTAG observed favorable long-term outcome. Thus, the device demonstrates appropriate persistent safety, efficacy, and clinical durability up to long-term FU in the treatment of diverse thoracic aortic pathologies.

Predicting reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair of Stanford type B aortic dissection using machine learning

OBJECTIVES

To construct models for predicting reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

A total of 192 TBAD patients who underwent TEVAR were included; 68 (35.4%) had indications for reintervention. Clinical characteristics, aorta characteristics on pre- and postoperative computed tomography angiography, and aorta characteristics on immediate postoperative aortic digital subtraction angiography were collected. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was applied to identify the risk factors for reintervention. Eight classifiers were used for modeling. The models were trained on 100 train-validation random splits with a ratio of 2:1. The performance was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

Seven predictors of reintervention were identified, including maximum false lumen diameter, aortic diameter measured at the level of approximately 15 mm distal to the left subclavian artery, aortic diameter measured at the level of the diaphragm, false lumen diameter measured at the level of the celiac artery, number of bare-metal and covered stents, number of bare-metal stents, and residual perfusion of the false lumen. Logistic regression (LR) yielded the highest performance, with an area under the curve of 0.802. A nomogram built for clinical use showed good calibration. The cutoff value for dividing patients into low- and high-risk subgroups was 0.413. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the overall survival of high-risk patients was significantly shorter than that of low-risk patients (both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our nomogram could predict the reintervention after TEVAR in patients with TBAD, which may facilitate patient selection and surveillance strategies.

KEY POINTS

• Seven risk factors of reintervention after TEVAR of TBAD were identified for modeling. • Logistic regression performed best in predicting reintervention with an AUC of 0.802. • Patients with a high risk of reintervention had shorter OS than those with a low risk.

Using Machine Learning to Predict Five-Year Reintervention Risk in Type B Aortic Dissection Patients After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Purpose: Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a high-risk disease, commonly treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). However, for the long-term follow-up, it is associated with a high 5-year reintervention rate for patients after TEVAR. There is no accurate definition of prognostic risk factors for TBAD in medical guidelines, and there is no scientific judgment standard for patients’ quality of life or survival outcome in the next five years in clinical practice. A large amount of medical data features makes prognostic analysis difficult. However, machine learning (ML) permits lots of objective data features to be considered for clinical risk stratification and patient management. We aimed to predict the 5-year prognosis in TBAD after TEVAR by Ml, based on baseline, stent characteristics and computed tomography angiography (CTA) imaging data, and provided a certain degree of scientific basis for prognostic risk score and stratification in medical guidelines. Materials and Methods: Dataset we recorded was obtained from 172 TBAD patients undergoing TEVAR. Totally 40 features were recorded, including 14 baseline, 5 stent characteristics and 21 CTA imaging data. Information gain (IG) was used to select features highly associated with adverse outcome. Then, the Gradient Boost classifier was trained using grid search and stratified 5-fold cross-validation, and Its predictive performance was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC) in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC). Results: Totally 60 patients underwent reintervention during follow-up. Combing 24 features selected by IG, ML model predicted prognosis well in TBAD after TEVAR, with an AUC of 0.816 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.797 to 0.837. Reintervention rate of prediction was slightly higher than the actual (48.2% vs. 34.8%). Conclusion: Machine learning, which combined with baseline, stent characteristics and CTA imaging data for personalized risk computations, effectively predicted reintervention risk in TBAD patients after TEVAR in 5-year follow-up. The model could be used to efficiently assist the clinical management of TBAD patients and prompt high-risk factors.

Long-term outcomes of intervention between open repair and endovascular aortic repair for descending aortic pathologies: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The long-term complication rates of open repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have not yet been determined. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes and aortic reintervention rates between open repair and TEVAR in patients with descending thoracic aortic pathologies.

METHODS

Between January 2002 and December 2017, 230 patients with descending thoracic aortic pathologies underwent surgery. Of these, 136 patients were included in this retrospective study: 45 patients (10, 2, and 33 with dissection, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer, and pseudoaneurysm, respectively) underwent open repair and 91 patients (27, 1, and 63 with dissection, penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer, and pseudoaneurysm, respectively) underwent TEVAR. The primary end points were in-hospital mortality, and short-term complications. The secondary end points were long-term mortality and reintervention rates. Based on the propensity score matching (PSM), 35 patients who underwent open repair were matched to 35 patients who underwent TEVAR (ratio = 1:1).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 70.2 ± 51.9 months. Shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay were seen in the TEVAR group than in the open repair group before and after PSM (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). However, in-hospital mortality, and spinal cord ischemia were not significantly different among the two groups (before PSM: p = 0.068 and p = 0.211, respectively; after PSM: p = 0.303 and p = 0.314, respectively). The cumulative all-cause death and aorta-related death showed no significant differences between the two groups (before PSM: p = 0.709 and p = 0.734, respectively; after PSM: p = 0.888 and p = 0.731, respectively). However, aortic reintervention rates were higher in the TEVAR group than in the open repair group before and after PSM (p = 0.006 and p = 0.013, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The TEVAR group was superior in short-term recovery outcomes but had higher reintervention rates compared to the open repair group. However, there were no significant differences in long-term survival between the two groups.

Hybrid two-stage repair of Stanford A dissection with visceral or peripheral malperfusion

Background

The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of two-stage hybrid aortic repair at the distal aorta of Stanford A dissection with malperfusion.

Methods

This retrospective case series included 20 patients with Stanford A dissection administered two-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) about 1 month after central repair because of visceral or limb malperfusion. The patients were examined by computed tomography (CT) angiography at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after operation. Recovery of malperfusion and true lumen index were evaluated during follow-up.

Results

Twenty patients underwent two-stage hybrid aortic repair, including 11 males and 9 females. The follow-up time was 24 ± 7 months. No intervention-related complications were observed, including stent graft-induced new re-entry tears, death, stroke and spinal cord injury. Malperfusion in all cases was corrected. The true lumen was not enlarged enough 1 month after the first surgery. Thrombosis of the false lumen was observed around the elephant trunk at the carina level and the celiac artery. Three months after second stage TEVAR, the false lumen thrombosis was resorbed; in addition, the trunk was fully expanded at the carina level, and the true lumen was enlarged at the celiac artery.

Conclusions

Two-stage hybrid aortic repair for residual true lumen in the distal aorta 1 month after initial surgery is helpful for descending aorta remodeling and effective in treating malperfusion. This procedure may be a good option for patients suffering from Stanford A dissection with small true lumen in the distal aorta and malperfusion.

Burden and causes of readmissions following initial discharge after aortic syndromes

BACKGROUND

Aortic syndromes, including aortic dissection (AD), intramural hematoma (IMH), and penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU), carry significant morbidity and mortality; few data exist regarding burden and causes of related rehospitalizations following initial discharge.

METHODS

The study was conducted using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. All adult residents (age ≥18 years) with an incident diagnosis of AD, IMH, and PAU (1995-2015) were identified from the Rochester Epidemiology Project using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision codes and Hospital Adaptation of the International Classification of Diseases, second edition, codes. Assessment of any-cause (aortic and cardiovascular), aorta-related, or cardiovascular-related readmissions was determined following date of hospital discharge or diagnosis date (ie, the index event).

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients of 130 cases of AD, IMH, and PAU included in the initial study population survived the index event and were evaluated. The median age of diagnosis was 74 years, and 70 (60%) were male. A total of 79 patients (68%) experienced at least one readmission. The median time to first any-cause, cardiovascular, and aortic readmission was 143, 861, and 171 days, respectively. The cumulative incidence of any-cause readmissions at 2, 4, and 10 years was 45%, 55%, and 69%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of cardiovascular readmissions at 2, 4, and 10 years was 15%, 20%, and 28%, respectively. The cumulative incidence of aortic readmissions at 2, 4, and 10 years was 38%, 46%, and 59%, respectively. Overall survival for the entire cohort at 2, 4, and 10 years was 84%, 75%, and 50%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Readmissions following initial discharge after diagnosis of aortic syndrome are common and not different across specific disease types. Whereas aorta-related rehospitalizations occur in more than half of patients but tend to be earlier, cardiovascular-related rehospitalizations tend to happen later in about one-third of patients. This may suggest the need for early follow-up focused on aortic complications, whereas later follow-up should address cardiovascular events.

Impact of patient factors and procedure on readmission after aortic dissection admission in the states of Florida and New York

BACKGROUND

Readmissions after aortic dissection (AD) admission are not well described. Using state-based administrative claims data, we sought to define readmission rates after AD and to identify factors associated with them.

METHODS

State Inpatient Databases for Florida (2007-2012) and New York (2008-2012) were queried for AD index admissions. Admissions were stratified by initial treatment strategy: type A open surgery repair (TAOR), type B open surgery repair (TBOR), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), or medical management (MM). All-cause readmission rates were calculated at 30 days, 90 days, and 2 years. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with readmission at each time point for all type A admissions (TAOR) or type B admissions (TBOR, TEVAR, MM).

RESULTS

We identified 4670 patients with an AD index admission. Treatment was with TAOR in 1031 (22%), TBOR in 761 (16%), TEVAR in 412 (9%), and MM in 2466 (53%). Patients were predominantly male (59.4%) and white (61.9%), with a median age of 66 years. Overall mortality during AD index admission was 14.8% (TAOR, 15.8%; TBOR, 17.1%; TEVAR, 9.0%; MM, 14.7%; P = .002 across all groups). All-cause readmission rates were similar across treatment groups at 30 days (9.6%-11%; P = .56), 90 days (15.2%-20%; P = .26), and 2 years (49.2%-54.4%; P = .15). Higher income quartile (vs lowest) was associated with lower odds of early readmission (at 30 days and 90 days) after type B admissions but not after type A admissions. At 2 years, self-pay (vs Medicare) was associated with lower odds of readmission in both type A and type B admissions, whereas higher comorbidity count and black race (vs white) were associated with higher odds of readmission. TEVAR (vs MM) was also associated with higher odds of readmission. Cardiovascular disease was the most common cause for readmission at all time points. Emergency department readmission counts were highest after MM admissions, and ambulatory surgical admissions were highest after TBOR. Both TEVAR and MM initial costs were lower than TAOR and TBOR costs, but at 2 years, costs remained significantly lower only for MM.

CONCLUSIONS

In-state 30-day, 90-day, and 2-year readmission rates after AD were not associated with initial treatment type. Two-year readmissions are common. Strategies to target socioeconomic, race, and geographic factors may reduce variations in readmission patterns after AD admission.

False lumen embolization as a rescue technique in the setting of acute and chronic dissecting aneurysms as adjunct to thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a life-threatening condition requiring surgical intervention. One such complication in the acute or chronic setting is aneurysmal degeneration. The dissected aortic wall is weakened, and the pressures in the false lumen are often high. In the past decade, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the treatment of choice for TBAD. TEVAR can be complicated by lack of false lumen thrombosis, increasing the risk of death. We present three cases of TBAD with patent false lumens after TEVAR that were treated by false lumen coil embolization.

Mid-term outcomes of endovascular repair for traumatic thoracic aortic injury: a single-center experience

PURPOSE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for traumatic thoracic aortic injury (TTAI) reports short-term benefits. However, long-term durability and the need of reintervention remain unclear. Here, we determined mid-term outcome of TEVAR for TTAI and investigated the influence of the length of proximal landing zone on aorta.

METHODS

Between October 2009 and February 2018, 69 patients diagnosed TTAI and 42 included patients underwent TEVAR. Patients were divided into two groups by the length of proximal landing zone; ≤ 20 mm and > 20 mm. The primary endpoint was success and survival rate, and the secondary endpoint was the increase of aorta size and the need of reintervention.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 47.9 ± 29.6 months and 100% success rate. No endoleaks or additional reinterventions during the follow-up period. The cumulative survival of all-cause death was 90.5 ± 2.3%, 85.7 ± 4.1% and 61.7 ± 8.4% at 1, 5 and 7 years, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the increase of aorta size due to the length of the proximal landing zone (p = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

In selective TTAI patients for TEVAR, the length of proximal landing zone did not considerably influence the aorta size or needed further reintervention.

Proposed classification of endoleaks after endovascular treatment of Stanford type-B aortic dissections

Objectives

Despite two decades of experience, no dedicated classification system exists to document and prognosticate patterns of endoleak encountered after endovascular therapy of type-B aortic dissection. This nomenclature gap has led to inconsistent management and underreporting of significant findings associated with adverse outcomes after endovascular treatment of type-B aortic dissection. Our goal was to propose a reproducible and prognostically relevant classification.

Methods

A multidisciplinary team of seven experienced open and endovascular aortic surgeons was assembled to provide consensus opinion. Extensive literature review was conducted. Deficiencies in the current classification approach of the various patterns of persistent filling of false lumen after endovascular therapy were identified.

Results

Our focus was to categorize high-risk and low-risk subgroups within endoleaks after endovascular treatment of type-B aortic dissection. In this classification, type-Ia endoleak refers to persistent filling of the false lumen in an antegrade manner. Causes include failure to cover the primary entry tear and sizing or technical related proximal seal failure. False lumen filling via distal entry tears is classified as type Ib endoleak, which is further sub-classified into b1 (major branch-related tears), and b2 (multiple small branches related tears). Retrograde ascending aortic dissection and stent graft-induced new entry were classified as type-I endoleaks (type-Ir and type-Is, respectively). Another focus was reclassification type-II endoleaks, with type-IIa endoleak referring to conventional retroleak from one or more posterior branches and type-IIx referring to retroleak from major branches (visceral or left subclavian arteries).

Conclusions

The majority of endoleaks after endovascular treatment of type-B aortic dissection are related to persistent or new filling of the false lumen. We propose a new false lumen-based classification schema for endoleaks occurring after endovascular therapy of type-B aortic dissection.

Fracture of the Bare Spring of a Thoracic Endograft for Type A Aortic Dissection: A Case Report

Retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) following thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a devastating complication associated with high mortality rates. In particular, a deployed endograft in a bird-beak formation in an acute curve of the aortic arch can induce injury to the fragile aortic wall, with the subsequent development of RTAD. Here, we describe an extremely rare case of RTAD caused by fracture of the bare spring of the thoracic endograft for type A aortic dissection.

Risk Factors Associated With Reintervention After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Descending Aortic Pathologies

BACKGROUND:

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with several short-term benefits, including reduced morbidity and mortality; however, the long-term durability of TEVAR and the need for secondary aortic reintervention remain unclear. We aimed to determine the adverse outcomes, including aortic reintervention, after TEVAR for thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissection.

METHODS:

Between October 2009 and July 2016, 130 patients underwent TEVAR at Kyungpook National University Hospital. We excluded 35 patients with traumatic injury and included the remaining 95 patients in our study after TEVAR. The patients included in this study were categorized into 2 groups (reintervention [R] and nonintervention [N] groups) according to the need for reintervention. The mean follow-up period for all 95 patients was 22.4 (20.6) months.

RESULTS:

The overall actuarial survival rates were 83.7% (4.1%) and 63.6% (8.8%) at 1 and 5 years, respectively. The rates of freedom from aortic reintervention after TEVAR were 94.0% (3.5%), 72.8% (8.2%), and 48.9% (10.5%) at 2, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The independent risk factors for aortic reintervention were endoleaks after TEVAR (odds ratio [OR] 6.13, P = .017), increase in aortic size by over 5% per year (OR 20.40, P = .001), and peripheral vascular occlusive disease (PVOD; OR 13.62, P = .007). Patients with preoperative hemoptysis tended to show a greater need for aortic reintervention ( P = .059). Increase in aortic size by over 5% per year and PVOD were the primary risk factors for endoleaks (OR 3.82, P = .013 and OR 4.37, P = .021, respectively).

CONCLUSION:

Survival after TEVAR for thoracic aortic pathologies was satisfactory in most of the patients chosen as candidates for the procedure. However, the occurrence of endoleaks, increase in aortic size by over 5% per year, and PVOD were the primary causes of aortic reintervention.

New type A dissection after acute type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

Aortic dissection is a dynamic process that can progress both proximal and distal to the initial entry tear. We sought to determine associations for development of proximal progression or new type A aortic dissection (NTAD) after acute type B dissection (ATBD) and its effect on survival of the patient.

METHODS

We reviewed all cases of acute aortic dissection that we managed from 1999 to 2014. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to identify correlates of NTAD. Multivariable regression and proportional hazards regression analysis was done to determine the effect of dissection progression on long-term survival.

RESULTS

Among 477 cases of ATBD managed, 19 (4.0%) patients developed NTAD during a median follow-up of 4.1 (interquartile range, 1.4-7.7) years. Median time from diagnosis of ATBD to NTAD was 124 (interquartile range, 23-1201) days. Baseline predictors for development of NTAD at initial ATBD admission included bicuspid aortic valve (P = .006) and age <60 years (P = .012). Although not statistically significant, point estimates indicate that thoracic endovascular aortic repair was twice as frequent in NTAD cases as in non-NTAD cases. Overall 5-year survival was 70.2%. Patients who had repair of NTAD appear to have longer survival, although this effect is on the margin of statistical significance (P = .051). After risk factor and correlates of NTAD adjustment, this effect was no longer apparent (P = .089).

CONCLUSIONS

The natural history of ATBD is such that there is a persistent risk of NTAD, with the highest risk in the first 6 months. Factors associated with NTAD include bicuspid aortic valve and young age. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair did not have a large effect on risk. Timely diagnosis and repair of NTAD are associated with good survival rates. Lifelong surveillance is warranted in all cases of descending thoracic aortic dissection regardless of initial treatment modality.