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

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence Related to the Impact of Endovascular Repair Timing on Prognosis of Acute Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to determine whether thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) timing is more beneficial in the acute phase (first 14 days) than in the subacute phase (14-90 days) for the administration of acute Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in databases (EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library) until December 2023 to identify studies reporting the results of TEVAR used for patients with acute TBAD. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated utilizing either the random-effects model or the fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies involving 4,827 individuals with TBAD (including 1,609 with subacute TBAD) met our selection criteria. Early results revealed a lower incidence of Ia endoleaks (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.03-2.33; P = 0.04) and aortic ruptures (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 0.98-8.50; P = 0.05) in subacute TBAD. Apart from these findings, there was little difference in other incidents between the 2 groups. Regarding late outcomes, we observed significantly higher rates of retrograde dissection (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.04-4.34; P = 0.04), distal stent-induced new entry (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.24-4.61; P = 0.009), and reintervention (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.05-1.99; P = 0.02) in acute TBAD than in subacute TBAD, whereas no significant differences were found for other outcomes between the 2 groups. Also, TEVAR appeared to yield comparable results for false lumen thrombosis and true lumen regression in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Subacute TBAD repair with TEVAR demonstrates a more effective reduction in adverse event rates compared to immediate treatment in the acute phase.

The Impact of Oversizing in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair on Long-Term Outcomes in Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of oversizing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on early and long-term survival and major adverse events in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2018, 226 patients who were diagnosed with uncomplicated TBAD and received TEVAR were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into ≤5% oversizing (n=153) and >5% oversizing (n=73) groups. Primary end points were all-cause and aortic-related mortalities. Secondary end points were procedure-related complications, including retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD), endoleak, distal stent-induced new entry (SINE), and late reintervention. All-cause and aortic-related mortalities were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival method, while procedure-related complications were evaluated using a competing risk model with all-cause death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

Mean oversizing was 2.1%±1.5% in the ≤5% oversizing group and 9.6%±4.1% in the >5% oversizing group. Differences in the 30-day mortality and adverse events between the 2 groups were statistically insignificant. The freedom from all-cause mortality was comparable between the ≤5% oversizing group and the >5% oversizing group (≤5%: 93.3% at 5 years, >5%: 92.3% at 5 years, p=0.957). No significant difference was observed between both groups in the freedom from aortic-related mortality (≤5%: 95.0% at 5 years, >5%: 96.7% at 5 years, p=0.928). However, the competing risk analyses revealed that the cumulative incidence of RTAD was statistically significantly greater in the >5% oversizing group than in the ≤5% oversizing group (≤5%: 1(0.7%) at 5 years, >5%: 6(6.9%) at 5 years, p=0.007). All RTADs occurred within a year of TEVAR. The differences in the cumulative incidences of type I endoleak, distal SINE, and late reintervention were not significant between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The differences in the 5-year all-cause mortality and aortic-related mortality between patients with uncomplicated TBAD who received TEVAR with ≤5% oversizing and those who got TEVAR with >5% oversizing were insignificant. However, oversizing >5% was considerably associated with an increased risk of RTAD within a year of TEVAR, suggesting that oversizing ≤5% may be the appropriate size for TEVAR in patients with uncomplicated TBAD.

CLINICAL IMPACT

For patients with uncomplicated TBAD, choosing oversizing ≤5% in endovascular treatment is beneficial to reduce the risk of postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection. This finding provides a basis for stent size selection in endovascular repair. In addition, one year after TEVAR is the main time period for postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection, and attention should be paid to the management and follow-up of this period.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for hyperacute, acute, subacute and chronic type B aortic dissection: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Since the optimal timing for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in the context of type B aortic dissections (TBAD) remains an open question, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes of TEVAR according to the phases of TBAD - hyperacute, acute, subacute and chronic. We carried out a pooled meta-analysis of time-to-event data extracted from studies published by June 2023 for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, aortic-related mortality, and late aortic reinterventions. Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising 4,793 patients (10.3 % hyperacute, 51.9 % acute, 25.9 % subacute, 11.9 % chronic). Considering the overall population, we observed a statistically significant difference between the groups (Log-rank test, P < 0.0001) and the main differences were found in the following comparisons: hyperacute versus acute (HR 1.61; 95 %CI 1.21-2.13; P = 0.001); hyperacute versus chronic (HR 1.70; 95 %CI 1.17-2.46; P = 0.005); subacute versus acute (HR 0.78; 95 %CI 0.63-0.98; P = 0.032). Considering the population with uncomplicated TBAD, we also observed a statistically significant difference for all-cause death between the groups (Log-rank test, P < 0.0001) and the main differences were found in the comparisons for subacute versus acute (HR 0.72; 95 %CI 0.58-0.88; P = 0.002). Furthermore, we observed statistically significant differences between the groups for aortic-related death (Log-rank test, P < 0.0001) and late aortic reintervention (Log-rank test, P < 0.0001), all favoring mostly the subacute phase as the optimal timing for TEVAR. In conclusion, there seems to be a timing-specific difference in the outcomes of TEVAR for TBAD pointing to the subacute phase as the optimal timing to achieve better long-term outcomes.

Optimal Timing of Pre-emptive Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This network meta-analysis compares outcomes of optimal medical therapy (OMT) and pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection at different phases of chronicity.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through November 2023. Pooled short-term outcomes (short-term mortality, perioperative complications) and long-term outcomes (all-cause mortality, aortic-related mortality, aortic re-intervention rates) were calculated.

RESULTS

Systematic review identified 17 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 3 propensity score matching, and 2 inverse probability weighting). Subacute-phase intervention had lower short-term mortality than the acute-phase (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI]]=0.60 [0.38-0.94], p=0.027). No significant differences were observed in aortic rupture and paraplegia. Acute-phase TEVAR had a higher stroke incidence than subacute-phase intervention (HR [95% CI]=2.63 [1.36-5.09], p=0.042), chronic (HR [95% CI]=2.5 [1.03-6.2], p=0.043), and OMT (HR [95% CI]=1.57 [1.12-2.18], p=0.008). Acute-phase TEVAR had higher long-term all-cause mortality than subacute-phase intervention (HR [95% CI]=1.34 [1.03-1.74], p=0.03). Optimal medical therapy had elevated long-term all-cause mortality compared with subacute-phase TEVAR (HR [95% CI]=1.67 [1.25-2.33], p<0.001) and increased long-term aortic-related mortality vs acute-phase (HR [95% CI]=2.08 [1.31-3.31], p=0.002) and subacute-phase (HR [95% CI]=2.6 [1.62-4.18], p<0.01) interventions. No significant differences were observed in aortic re-intervention rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-emptive TEVAR may offer lower all-cause mortality and aortic-related mortality than OMT. Considering lower short-term mortality, perioperative stroke rate, and long-term mortality, our findings support pre-emptive TEVAR during the subacute phase.

CLINICAL IMPACT

The optimal timing of pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection remains uncertain. This network meta-analysis suggests that the subacute phase (14-90 days from symptom onset) emerges as the optimal timing for pre-emptive TEVAR. This window is associated with lower rates of short-term complications and higher long-term survival rates compared with alternative strategies.

Timing of Intervention and Long-Term Outcomes of Type B Aortic Intramural Hematoma with Intimal Disruption at Admission

BACKGROUND

To compare the 30-day and long-term outcomes between patients with concomitant type B intramural hematoma and intimal disruption upon admission who underwent endovascular repair in the acute or subacute phases.

METHODS

Data were extracted from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019. Logistic regression and Cox regression were performed to evaluate the impact of timing of intervention on 30-day and long-term outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

The study included 241 patients, among which 159 were in the acute group. No significant difference was observed in 30-day mortality (0.6% vs. 0%, P = 1), 30-day complication rate (2.5% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.664), long-term all-cause mortality (10.7% vs. 7.3%, P = 0.540), and aortic reintervention rate (2.5% vs. 2.4%, P = 1) between the acute and subacute group. In multivariable analysis, the timing of intervention was not associated with 30-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) = 0, 95% confidence interval CI: 0-Inf, P = 0.999), 30-day complication (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.02-3.77, P = 0.348), long-term mortality (hazard ratio = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.20-1.61, P = 0.283), and aortic reintervention (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.15-6.08, P = 0.970).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with concomitant type B intramural hematoma and intimal disruption upon admission, there is no significant difference in 30-day and long-term outcomes between those who undergo endovascular treatment in the acute or subacute phase.

The Role of Endovascular Repair Timing in Uncomplicated Acute Type B Intramural Hematoma Management

BACKGROUND

With favorable results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with uncomplicated acute type B intramural hematoma (uTBIMH), TEVAR is increasingly utilized in the management of patients with uTBIMH. However, optimal timing for intervention has not been decided. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of acute and delayed TEVAR in patients with uTBIMH.

METHODS

We included patients with uTBIMH who underwent TEVAR between October 2014 and December 2021. The participants were divided into the acute TEVAR (aTEVAR) and delayed TEVAR (dTEVAR) groups. We analyzed the total aortic diameter (TAD)/true lumen diameter (TLD) ratio on computed tomography angiography (CTA) and aortic-related adverse events and all-cause mortality (AREM).

RESULTS

We included 34 individuals with uTBIMH, among which 20 underwent aTEVAR and 14 underwent dTEVAR. We observed no significant differences in baseline characteristics between both groups. However, compared with the aTEVAR group, better aortic remodeling was achieved in the dTEVAR group before discharge (1.32 ± 0.11 vs. 1.21 ± 0.09, P = 0.005) and at the 1-year follow-up (1.18 ± 0.09 vs. 1.10 ± 0.04, P = 0.034). Although the 30-day and 1-year follow-up outcomes of AREM were not significantly different, the Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that AREM incidence in the dTEVAR group was significantly lower than that in the aTEVAR group (85.7% for dTEVAR vs. 65.0% for aTEVAR, log-rank P = 0.20). Moreover, subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the TAD/TLD ratio between the aTEVAR and dTEVAR groups in individuals without a focal intimal disruption (1.33 ± 0.11 vs. 1.17 ± 0.09, P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with uTBIMH, delaying TEVAR by >7 days improved aortic remodeling and lowered the incidence of early AREM. Additionally, the absence of focal intimal disruption on preoperative CTA supports delayed intervention.

Endovascular repair of acute vs. subacute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis evaluating the optimal timing for endovascular repair of acute versus subacute uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection.

Method

PubMed, EMBASE, web of science and Cochrane Library was interrogated to identify Electronic bibliographic studies updated to January 2023 to collect studies compared the clinical outcomes of endovascular repair for Acute Versus Subacute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection. Data were aggregated as pooled odds ratios (OR) using the fixed or random effects models according to the significance of heterogeneity, Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated by RevMan 5.3 and applied with fixed or random-effect models.

Result

A comprehensive literature search found 322 citations published and finally among them 6 studies containing 3,769 patients (acute group 2,642, subacute group 1,127) were included in review. There is an increased risk of 30-day complications (OR = 1.51,95%CI,1.26-1.81) 30-day mortality (OR = 2.39,95%CI, 1.55-3.67) and 1-year mortality (OR = 1.71,95%CI,1.27-2.30) for an acute uTBAD group compared to subacute ones. Similarly, reintervention was more likely in the acute group than in the subacute group (OR = 1.42,95%CI,1.05-1.91). However, no significant differences were found in long-term mortality.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis confirmed that there was no significant difference in the long-term prognosis between the acute and subacute phases in the timing of surgery. However, considering the high incidence of complications, high re-intervention rate and one-year mortality probably caused by high intima fragility in the acute phase, endovascular repair at subacute phase appears to favorably compare with acute strategy. But future studies with adequate patient numbers and longer-term follow-up are necessary to further verify the study conclusion.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021247609, identifier PROSPERO CRD42021247609.

Impact of TEVAR timing on outcomes after uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection in the SVS VQI Post-approval Project for Dissection

OBJECTIVE

The timing of TEVAR after the onset of uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (UATBAD) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to evaluate the SVS VQI post-approval study (VQI PAS) data for the impact of TEVAR timing for UATBAD on early and late outcomes, including mortality, procedural complications and long-term reintervention.

METHODS

The VQI PAS utilized for this analysis includes a total of 606 patients. Patients with UATBAD (defined as those without rupture or malperfusion) exclusive of cases categorized as emergent (N=206), were divided into groups defined by the SVS/STS reporting guidelines based on timing of treatment after the onset of dissection: within 24 hours (N=8), 1-14 days (N=121), and 15-90 days (N=77). Univariate and multivariable analysis was used to determine differences between timing groups for postoperative mortality, in-hospital complications, and reintervention.

RESULTS

Demographics and comorbid conditions were very similar across the 3 TEVAR timing groups. Notable differences included a higher prevalence of baseline elevated creatinine (>1.8mg/dL)/chronic ESRD and designation as "urgent" in the <24-hour group, as well as a higher rate of pre-operative beta-blocker therapy in the 1-14 day group. Post-operative stroke, CHF, and renal ischemia were more common in the <24-hour group, without an increase in mortality. Unadjusted 30-day mortality across groups was lowest in the early TEVAR group (0%, 3.3%, 5.2% P=0.68), as was 1-year mortality (0%, 8.3%, 18.2%; P=0.06), although not statistically different at any time point. Reintervention out to three years was not different between the groups. Multivariable analysis demonstrated the need for a postoperative therapeutic lumbar drain to be the only a predictive risk factor for mortality (HR=7.595, 95% CI 1.730-33.337, P=0.007). When further subdivided into patients treated 1-7 days or 8-14 days after dissection, findings were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

UATBAD patients treated within 24 hours were unusual (N=8), too small for valid statistical comparison, and likely represent a high-risk subgroup, which is manifested in a higher risk of complications. Although there was a trend towards improved survival in the acute (1-14 day phase), outcomes did not differ compared to the subacute (15-90 days) phase with relation to early mortality, post-operative complications or one-year survival. These data suggest that proper selection of patients for early TEVAR can result in equivalent survival and early outcomes.

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.