Optimal treatment for patients with chronic Stanford type B aortic dissection: endovascularly, surgically or both?

Long-term results of etiology-based thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a single-center experience

The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) and Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) has been increasing; however, in terms of etiology, the differences of long term after TEVAR outcomes remain unexplored. Thus, we investigated etiology-specific long-term results of TEVAR for TAA and TBAD. A total of 421 TEVAR procedures were performed at our institution from July 2007 to December 2021; 249 TAA cases and 172 TBAD cases were included. Traumatic aortic dissection and aortic injury cases were excluded. The mean observation duration was 5.7 years. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 1.4% (n = 6), with 1.2% (n = 3) in the TAA group and 1.7% (n = 3) in the TBAD group. The overall incidence of postoperative stroke was 0.9% (n = 4), with 1.2% (n = 3) and 0.6% (n = 1) in the TAA and TBAD groups, respectively (p = 0.90). Paraplegia developed in 1.7% (n = 7) of patients, with 2.4% (n = 6) in the TAA group and 0.6% (n = 1) in the TBAD group. Freedom from aortic-related death was not significantly different between the two etiologies; however, thoracic reintervention was more common in the TBAD group (p = 0.003), with endoleak being the most common indication for reintervention. Additionally, retrograde type A aortic dissection occurred in four TBAD cases, while migration occurred in three TAA cases. The perioperative results of TEVAR for TAA and TBAD were satisfactory. The long-term results were unfavorable owing to the occurrence of etiology-specific and common complications. In terms of the high frequency of reintervention, the long-term complications associated with TEVAR are etiology specific.

Treatment of Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: Optimal Medical Therapy vs TEVAR + Optimal Medical Therapy

Optimal Medical Therapy (OMT) has been the accepted mode of treatment for uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection (uTBAD). There is growing evidence that despite the short-term benefits of OMT, patients suffer deleterious consequences in the long-term with OMT alone. Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) along with OMT has emerged as an alternative option for patients with uTBAD. This study evaluates the available literature for TEVAR + OMT as an alternative to OMT for treatment of uTBAD. In addition, issues related to TEVAR as a treatment for uTBAD are discussed.

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.

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.

Thoracic endovascular repair of chronic type B aortic dissection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

At present, the optimal management strategy for chronic type B aortic dissection (CTBAD) remains unknown, as equipoise remains regarding medical management versus endovascular treatment versus open surgery. However, the results over recent years of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in CTBAD appear promising. The aim of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive analysis of the available data reporting outcomes and survival rates for TEVAR in CTBAD.

METHODS

Electronic searches of six databases were performed from inception to April 2021. All studies reporting outcomes, specifically 30-day mortality rates, for endovascular repair of CTBAD were identified. Relevant data were extracted, and a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions or means was performed to aggregate the data. Survival data were pooled using data derived from original Kaplan-Meier curves, which allows reconstruction of individual patient data.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies with 2,641 patients were identified. Early (<30 days) all-cause and aortic-related mortality rates were low at 1.6% and 0.5%, respectively. Incidence of retrograde type A dissection in the post-operative period was only 1.4%. There were also low rates of cerebrovascular accidents and spinal cord injury (1.1% and 0.9%, respectively). Late follow-up all-cause mortality was 8.0%, however, late aortic-related mortality was only 2.4%. Reintervention rates were 10.1% for endovascular and 6.7% for surgical reintervention. Pooled rates of overall survival at 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year were 91.5%, 84.7%, 77.7% and 56.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant heterogeneity in the available evidence and absence of consensus reporting standards are important considerations and concern when interpreting the data. Evaluation of the evidence suggests that TEVAR for CTBAD is a safe procedure with low rates of complications. However, the optimal treatment strategy for CTBAD remains debatable and requires further research. Evidence from high-quality registries and clinical trials are required to address these challenges.

Early and Long-Term Follow-Up for Chronic Type B and Type Non-A Non-B Aortic Dissection Using the Frozen Elephant Trunk Technique

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the early and long-term outcomes of a single center using a frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure for chronic type B or non-A non-B aortic dissection.

Methods: From February 2009 to December 2019, 79 patients diagnosed with chronic type B or non-A non-B aortic dissection who underwent the FET procedure were included in the present study. We analyzed operation mortality and early and long-term outcomes, including complications, survival and interventions.

Results: The operation mortality rate was 5.1% (4/79). Spinal cord injury occurred in 3.8% (3/79), stroke in 2.5% (2/79), and acute renal failure in 5.1% (4/79). The median follow-up time was 53 months. The overall survival rates were 96.2, 92.3, 88.0, 79.8, and 76.2% at 1/2, 1, 3, 5 and 7 years, respectively. Moreover, 79.3% of patients did not require distal aortic reintervention at 7 years. The overall survival in the subacute group was superior to that in the chronic group (P = 0.047).

Conclusion: The FET technique is a safe and feasible approach for treating chronic type B and non-A non-B aortic dissection in patients who have contraindications for primary endovascular aortic repair. The technique combines the advantages of both open surgical repair and endovascular intervention, providing comparable early and long-term follow-up outcomes and freedom from reintervention.

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.

[Visceral debranching in hybrid surgery of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms]

Presented herein is a review of the literature dedicated to the method of visceral debranching, i. e., switching of the visceral and renal branches of the abdominal aorta to its intact portion, using synthetic vascular prostheses as the first stage of hybrid surgical treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms prior to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. This is accompanied and followed by describing the history of the problem, operative technique, results of studies, as well as the data from registries and meta-analyses. Also discussed are the main complications of the method and measures of their prevention. We conclude that hybrid surgery of the thoracoabdominal portion of the aorta is a promising method in a particular cohort of patients, especially those at high surgical risk of 'open' aortic surgery.

[Removal of ascending aortic dissection and residual blood flow after transcatheter isolation of descending aortic dissection]

Presented herein is a clinical case report concerning successful simultaneous surgical treatment of a female patient with a complication after transcatheter treatment for chronic dissection of the descending portion of the thoracic aorta. The woman was subjected to elective transcatheter isolation of chronic dissection of the descending thoracic aorta using a stent graft with complete coverage of the zone of the origin of the left subclavian artery. Repeat control imaging studies several months after the intervention revealed residual blood flow through the false channel, directed retrogradely from the distal edge of the stent graft to the left subclavian artery. Besides, the patient was also found to have local dissection of the distal part of the ascending aorta (zone 0). An operative intervention was performed: sternotomy, prosthetic repair of the ascending portion of the aorta and part of the aortic arch, as well as transposition of the left subclavian artery to the left common carotid artery. The control imaging studies confirmed radical removal of the false aneurysm of the ascending aorta and the presence of total thrombosis of the false channel at the level of the stent graft.

The 3-step approach for the treatment of multisegmental thoraco-abdominal aortic pathologies

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to describe our 3-step approach to treat multisegmental thoraco-abdominal aortic disease due to aortic dissection and to present our initial clinical results.

METHODS

Nine patients with multisegmental thoraco-abdominal aortic pathology due to aortic dissection underwent our 3-step approach, which consisted of total aortic arch replacement via the frozen elephant trunk technique, thoracic endovascular aortic repair for distal extension down to the level of the thoraco-abdominal transition and, finally, open thoraco-abdominal aortic replacement for the remaining downstream aortic segments. We assessed their baseline and aortic characteristics, previous aortic procedures, intraoperative details, clinical outcomes and follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median age was 58 (42-66) years; 4 patients (44%) presented connective tissue disease. Eight patients (89%) had undergone previous aortic surgery for aortic dissection. In-hospital mortality was 0% (n = 0). None suffered symptomatic spinal cord injury or disabling stroke. During the follow-up period, 1 patient died of acute biliary septic shock 6 months after thoraco-abdominal aortic replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-step approach to treat multisegmental thoraco-abdominal aortic pathology due to aortic dissection, which involves applying both open and endovascular techniques, is associated with an excellent clinical outcome and low perioperative risk. Distal shifting of the disease process through the thoracic endovascular aortic repair extension-and thereby necessitating limited open thoraco-abdominal aortic repair-seems to be the major factor enabling these favourable results.

IRB APPROVAL

IRB approval was obtained (No. 425/15) from the institutional review board of the University of Freiburg.

Comparative Outcome Analysis of N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Embolization of the False Lumen Versus Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Aortic Dissection

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) embolization for the treatment of aortic dissection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study conducted from February 2003 to June 2019, NBCA embolization of an aortic false lumen was attempted in 12 patients (median age, 59 y; range, 41-68 y) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was performed in 53 patients (median age, 59 y; range, 37-70 y) for aortic dissection with one or more indications of persisting pain, malperfusion, rupture or impending rupture, maximal aortic diameter ≥ 55 mm, and/or rapid aortic enlargement. The main exclusion criterion for embolization was the presence of fast blood flow in the aortic false lumen on aortography. The efficacy of NBCA embolization and TEVAR was compared by evaluating technical and clinical outcomes, repeat intervention-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 11 of the 12 patients treated with NBCA embolization (91.7%), and clinical success was achieved in 9 of these 11 (81.8%). No significant difference was found between embolization and TEVAR in clinical success rates (embolization, 81.8%; TEVAR, 84.9%; P = .409) or procedure-related complications (embolization, 1 patient [8.3%]; TEVAR, 4 patients [7.5%]; P = .701). In addition, embolization showed comparable 5-y RFS (embolization, 82.5% ± 9.3; TEVAR, 85.5% ± 4.8; P = .641) and 5-y OS (embolization, 100%; TEVAR, 95.4% ± 3.2; P = .744) rates to TEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

NBCA embolization of the false lumen in aortic dissection seems to be a safe and effective treatment modality for the closure of false lumen in selected patients.

A 10-year study of surgical results of descending aorta aneurysm repair following chronic aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting with descending aortic aneurysms developing after aortic dissection often undergo continued aortic expansion which may require operative interventions to address the risk of aortic rupture. In light of the current advances in various treatment options, including endovascular approaches, we analyzed our experience with open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms of the descending aorta following aortic dissection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open repair for aneurysmal changes of the descending aorta after chronic dissection were retrospectively studied. The 30-day operative mortality rate, midterm survival, and major complications were analyzed. Patients were divided into two categories; primary chronic type B aortic dissection and remnant repaired type A aortic dissection (RTAAD).

RESULTS

There were 149 patients with enlargement of the descending thoracic aorta developing after aortic dissection. Of these, 49 patients had medical management, while the remaining 100 patients received OSR. These patients were included in the present analysis. The 30-day mortality and permanent paraplegia rates were 9% and 4%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 83%, 80.9%, and 76.1%, respectively. The 1- and 5-year survival rates between the primary chronic type B aortic dissection and remnant RTAAD groups showed no significant between-group differences at 86.7% and 84.3%, and 80% and 71.3%, respectively (P = .289). The overall outcomes of other complications such as renal injury, bleeding reoperation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support showed no significant between-group differences, including an insignificantly higher neurologic complication rate in the remnant RTAAD group. The survival rate in patients with Marfan syndrome was significantly higher than in the patients without Marfan syndrome (P = .033).

CONCLUSIONS

OSR for descending aortic aneurysms developing after chronic aortic dissection showed good early and mid- to long-term outcomes, with acceptably low complication rates. OSR for descending aortic aneurysm after chronic aortic dissection associated with Marfan syndrome also showed good early and mid- to long-term outcomes.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus open chest surgical repair for patients with type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: This meta-analysis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TEVAR versus OCSR for TBAD patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library to identify studies compared the effectiveness of TEVAR and OCSR in TBAD patients from the inception up to July 2019. The summary results were calculated using a random-effects model.Results: The electronic search identified 1,894 studies, and 18 studies with 9,664 TBAD patients were included. We noted patients received TEVAR were associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality, acute renal failure, respiratory failure, and bleeding as compared with OCSR, whereas no significant differences between groups for the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, paraplegia, mesenteric ischaemia/infarction, reinterventions, sepsis, and spinal cord ischaemia.Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis study suggested that TEVAR resulted in more short-term survival benefits. Moreover, the reduced risk of acute renal failure, respiratory failure and bleeding was detected in TEVAR group. The treatment effects of TEVAR versus OCSR on specific complications should be further verified by a study with high-level of evidence.Key messageComprehensive collected studies investigated the treatment effectiveness between TEVAR and OCSR for TBAD patientsTEVAR resulted in more survival benefits, in addition to lower risk of acute renal failure, respiratory failure and bleedingThe results of stratified analyses according to patients' characteristics were conducted.

Open surgical repair of post-dissection thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms: early and late outcomes of a single-centre study involving over 200 patients

OBJECTIVES

Chronic, post-dissection thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are increasingly being treated by (hybrid) endovascular means. Although it is less invasive, thoracic endovascular aortic repair is technically complex with the risk of incomplete aneurysm exclusion, necessitating frequent reinterventions with potentially reduced long-term outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate contemporary early and late outcomes after open surgical repair of post-dissection TAAA.

METHODS

At our centre, 633 patients underwent open repair for TAAA over a 20-year period (1994-2015), including 217 (34%) patients for post-dissection TAAA, who were included in this analysis. Circulatory support was obtained by either left heart bypass (173 patients, 79.7%), deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (41 patients, 18.9%) or simple aortic cross-clamping in 3 patients. We analysed all relevant perioperative and intraoperative variables with respect to adverse outcomes. Additionally, long-term survival and the need for aortic reinterventions were studied.

RESULTS

The mean age was 60.2 ± 11.9 years (men 68.2%). We identified 66 Type I (30.4%), 113 Type II (52.1%), 25 Type III (11.5%), 10 Type IV (4.6%) and 3 Type V (1.4%) TAAAs. Early mortality and spinal cord deficit were 5.9% and 5.5%, respectively. Follow-up was 100% complete (mean 6.0 ± 5.8 years), with long-term survival of 71.4% at 10 years, and freedom from death and reoperation was 68.2% at 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is more invasive than current endovascular approaches for post-dissection TAAA, open surgical repair can be performed safely with acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality when it is done in a specialized aortic centre. Long-term survival and freedom from aortic reintervention are excellent and should also be taken into account when evaluating less invasive alternatives.

[Choice of optimal treatment policy in patients with descending aortic dissection]

Contemporary approaches to treatment of patients with dissection of the descending aorta (DA), as well as the data of international registries and guidelines are contradictory. The endovascular method of treatment of patients with descending aortic dissection has been recognized to be revolutionary. However, there seems to be no commonly accepted concept concerning appropriate use of currently available techniques of treating patients with DA dissection. This study was aimed at analysing the experience gained in using various methods of treatment of patients with descending aortic dissection (DAD). We retrospectively examined the results of surgical treatment of 78 patients with DAD. Of these, 45 patients were found to have Stanford type B dissection and 33 patients had type A dissection, who underwent treatment during ten years from January 2008. The decision concerning the type of care for patients with DAD (conservative, surgical, endovascular or combined methods of treatment) directly depends on the patient's state stability, technical feasibility of the intended procedure, and the presence of concomitant pathology. The findings obtained in our study demonstrated better immediate outcomes of the endovascular approach compared with the hybrid and surgical ones. In order to achieve complete haemodynamic correction of the pathology, to minimize the risk of aortic remodelling and the development of aorta-related complications, the treatment should not be limited to endoprosthetic repair of the thoracic portion of the DA with a stent graft, but should rather be supplemented with stenting of more distal segments, including with uncoated stents at the level of the visceral branches. Only such staged approach may provide better conditions for obliteration of the aortic false lumen and formation of a 'neo-frame' of the aortic wall.

Staged coil embolization after thoracic endovascular stent grafting for aneurysmal chronic type B aortic dissection: A case report

We herein describe a 38-year-old woman with Marfan syndrome and chronic type A aortic dissection. Computed tomography showed that the sinus of Valsalva and thoracoabdominal aorta had a diameter of 62 and 55 mm, respectively. After 7 months of a Bentall operation and total arch replacement with the elephant trunk technique, we performed thoracic endovascular aortic repair for an aneurysm of the descending aorta, but we preserved the retrograde flow into the false lumen because it supplied vessels perfusing the spinal cord. Computed tomography angiography 14 months after thoracic endovascular aortic repair showed that the thoracic aortic diameter had increased to 68 mm. We then performed partial (proximal only) coil embolization of the false lumen. After 6 months, the thoracic aortic diameter had decreased to 60 mm and the spinal cord remained perfused via the distal false lumen. Staged coil embolization after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aneurysmal chronic type B aortic dissection is feasible and can be beneficial.

Conservative management versus endovascular or open surgery in the spectrum of type B aortic dissection

Background

Type B aortic dissection is a life-threatening acute aortic condition often with acute ischemic signs or symptoms. With initial management focusing on alleviating malperfusion and pain, and avoiding propagation of dissection or rupture both systolic blood and pulse pressure should be reduced initially by an aggressive medical approach. In the setting of persistent signs of complications endovascular strategies have replaced open surgery and led to a fourfold increase in early survival and better long-term outcomes.

Methods

An electronic health database search was performed on articles published between January 2006 and July 2017. Publications were included in this review if (I) the index aortic pathology was type B aortic (distal) dissection; (II) when medical management, open surgical replacement or thoracic endovascular aortic repair were among those options; (III) when at least one of all basic outcome criteria such as survival, spinal cord ischemia and cerebrovascular accident was reported; (IV) when ≥15 serial patients were included. A total of 62 studies were eligible and analysed.

Results

Our manuscript has summarized data collected over 12 years on management specific outcomes in the setting of distal aortic dissection and provides an up-to-date interpretation of the published evidence. For complicated cases, treated acutely, the 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 7.3% when managed by endovascular means, whereas the pooled rate for 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 19.0% when subjected to open repair. For acute uncomplicated type B dissection usually treated with blood pressure lowering medications, the pooled 30-day or in-hospital mortality rate was 2.4%. Survival rates at 5 years averaged at 60% (40% mortality). Freedom from any aortic event ranged from 34.0% to 83.9%, underlining an inherent risk of progression and late complications. For chronic complicated type B dissection, the rates of stroke, paraplegia and operative mortality following endovascular repair ranged from 5% to 13%, 2% to 13% and 2 to 13%, respectively, while 5-year survival rates after open repair ranged from 60% to 90%. In chronic uncomplicated type B dissection almost 90% of patients survive initial hospitalization and were subjected to medical management with a 5-year survival of 50-80%. However, up to 20-55% of medically treated patients develop aneurysmal degeneration after 5 years with an unknown risk of rupture.

Conclusions

Currently, the less invasive strategy of endovascular repair (as compared to open surgery) provides improved 30-day or in-hospital survival in the setting of complicated acute type B aortic dissection and may seek broad application. Open surgical aortic reconstruction should be left to experienced aortic centres if endovascular management is not an option.

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.

Operative results of the anterolateral thoracotomy with partial sternotomy approach for chronic-type B aortic dissection involving the aortic arch

Objectives

There are various treatment strategies for chronic-type B aortic dissection involving the aortic arch. Our aim was to review our surgical experience in the anterolateral thoracotomy with the partial sternotomy approach for chronic-type B aortic dissection involving the aortic arch.

Methods

From January 2000 to October 2015, 39 patients underwent the single-stage open surgery for chronic-type B aortic dissection involving the aortic arch using the anterolateral thoracotomy with partial sternotomy approach.

Results

Among the 39 patients, 32 were men (82.1%; mean age at surgery, 61.3 ± 11.9 years), with a mean dissecting aortic aneurysm diameter of 50.21 ± 12.20 mm; 28 patients (71.8%) had patent false lumens of the descending aorta. The median interval from dissection occurrence until surgery was 34.05 ± 52.34 months. Twenty-one patients underwent descending aortic replacement plus total aortic arch replacement and 18 underwent descending aortic replacement (plus partial aortic arch replacement). Overall in-hospital mortality and postoperative stroke rates were 5.1% (2 patients) and 10.3% (4 patients), respectively. Survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 94.7%, 94.7% and 90.2%, respectively. Aortic event-free rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 90.9%, 90.9% and 80.2%, respectively.

Conclusions

The anterolateral thoracotomy with partial sternotomy approach is a useful surgical procedure with acceptable outcomes for chronic-type B aortic dissection cases involving the aortic arch, when aortic remodelling using thoracic endovascular aortic repair cannot be performed.

Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review

Background

Currently, the optimal management strategy for chronic type B aortic dissections (CBAD) is unknown. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature to compare results of open surgical repair (OSR), standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or branched and fenestrated TEVAR (BEVAR/FEVAR) for CBAD.

Methods

EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for eligible studies between January 2000 and October 2015. Studies describing outcomes of OSR, TEVAR, B/FEVAR, or all, for CBAD patients initially treated with medical therapy, were included. Primary endpoints were early mortality, and one-year and five-year survival. Secondary endpoints included occurrence of complications. Furthermore, a Time until Treatment Equipoise (TUTE) graph was constructed.

Results

Thirty-five articles were selected for systematic review. A total of 1081 OSR patients, 1397 TEVAR patients and 61 B/FEVAR patients were identified. Early mortality ranged from 5.6% to 21.0% for OSR, 0.0% to 13.7% for TEVAR, and 0.0% to 9.7% for B/FEVAR. For OSR, one-year and five-year survival ranged 72.0%-92.0% and 53.0%-86.7%, respectively. For TEVAR, one-year survival was 82.9%-100.0% and five-year survival 70.0%-88.9%. For B/FEVAR only one-year survival was available, ranging between 76.4% and 100.0%. Most common postoperative complications included stroke (OSR 0.0%-13.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-11.8%), spinal cord ischemia (OSR 0.0%-16.4%, TEVAR 0.0%-12.5%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-12.9%) and acute renal failure (OSR 0.0%-33.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-34.4%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-3.2%). Most common long-term complications after OSR included aneurysm formation (5.8%-20.0%) and new type A dissection (1.7–2.2%). Early complications after TEVAR included retrograde dissection (0.0%-7.1%), malperfusion (1.3%–9.4%), cardiac complications (0.0%–5.9%) and rupture (0.5%–5.0%). Most common long-term complications after TEVAR were rupture (0.5%–7.1%), endoleaks (0.0%–15.8%) and cardiac complications (5.9%-7.1%). No short-term aortic rupture or malperfusion was observed after B/FEVAR. Long-term complications included malperfusion (6.5%) and endoleaks (0.0%-66.7%). Reintervention rates after OSR, TEVAR and B/FEVAR were 5.8%-29.0%, 4.3%-47.4% and 0.0%-53.3%, respectively. TUTE for OSR was 2.7 years, for TEVAR 9.9 months and for B/FEVAR 10.3 months.

Conclusion

We found a limited early survival benefit of standard TEVAR over OSR for CBAD. Complication rates after TEVAR are higher, but complications after OSR are usually more serious. Initial experiences with B/FEVAR show its feasibility, but long-term results are needed to compare it to OSR and standard TEVAR. We conclude that optimal treatment of CBAD remains debatable and merits a patient specific decision. TUTE seems a feasible and useful tool to better understand management outcomes of CBAD.

Aneurysm Shrinkage Is Compatible With Massive Endoleak in the Presence of an Aortocaval Fistula

Purpose: To present a patient with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and aortocaval fistula who was successfully treated with endovascular aneurysm repair in spite of developing a massive endoleak. Case Report: A 70-year-old man with ruptured AAA and aortocaval fistula was treated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). During 8 years of follow-up, he had massive perfusion of the aneurysm sac by retrograde flow from the inferior mesenteric artery into the caval vein through the aortocaval fistula. The aneurysm diameter decreased continuously in spite of the type II endoleak. This observation illustrates the mechanisms of sac expansion and may have therapeutic implications for complicated type II endoleaks and prevention of spinal cord ischemia in thoracic stent-grafting. Conclusion: EVAR can be applied in this rare setting because the ensuing high-flow endoleak is associated with sac shrinkage owing to depressurization by the caval shunt.

Propensity adjusted analysis of open and endovascular thoracic aortic repair for chronic type B dissection: a twenty-year evaluation

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection (CBAD), whether open (open descending aortic repair, OAR) or endovascular (thoracic endovascular aortic repair, TEVAR), is controversial, suggesting a comparative analysis is warranted.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-two of 1,049 patients (1993 to 2013) undergoing descending aortic repair required intervention for CBAD 29.2 ± 34.9 months after the initial acute event and formed the study cohort (mean age 59.7 years). Those with degenerated residual type A dissection were excluded (n = 65). Eighty-eight had extent IIIB CBAD; 11 had intramural hematoma. Indications for surgery included aneurysmal degeneration (n = 105), rupture (n = 8), acute or chronic dissection (n = 8), and extension of dissection (n = 1). Open strategy included descending (n = 71) and thoracoabdominal repair (n = 19), with hypothermic circulatory arrest used in 70 patients. The TEVAR was performed with (n = 2) or without (n = 30) visceral debranching. A treatment strategy propensity score incorporating time since initial acute event, CBAD extent, year of intervention, age, and selected comorbidities was constructed for multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Early outcome included the following: 30-day mortality 4% (n = 5); stroke 2% (n = 2); permanent paraplegia 3% (n = 4); renal failure requiring dialysis 7% (n = 8, 5 temporary and 3 permanent); and tracheostomy 3% (n = 4). Visceral aorta intervention (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, p = 0.026) and maximum aortic diameter (OR 1.1, p = 0.001) but not treatment type (p = 0.64) independently predicted an early composite outcome comprised of these variables. Ten-year survival was 56.2%. Baseline creatinine (hazard ratio [HR] 1.7, p < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (HR 2.5, p = 0.021), but not treatment type (p = 0.225) predicted late mortality. Ten-year freedom from aortic rupture or need for reintervention was 78.3%. Treatment efficacy was improved after OAR (3-year freedom 96.7% vs TEVAR 87.5%, p = 0.026), and this was confirmed after Cox regression (TEVAR, HR 4.6, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Intervention for CBAD can be performed with excellent results, either by an open or endovascular approach. The higher rate of treatment failure after TEVAR warrants modification of current device design or endovascular approach before broad application of this treatment strategy.

Current Treatment Strategies for Acute Type B Aortic Dissection

Acute type B aortic dissection (ATBAD) is a medical emergency that is a common occurrence in patients with atherosclerotic disease. The presentation is usually severe, with tearing pain that radiates to the back, and various levels of end-organ ischemia and malperfusion, even rupture, may occur. Everyone agrees that prompt and aggressive blood pressure control with β-blockers and nitroprusside is imperative, but when to surgically intervene is still not well characterized. However, the advent of minimally invasive stent graft placement has reshaped our thoughts regarding therapeutic intervention for ATBAD. This review is an attempt to define the current surgical indications for treating ATBAD.

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

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

Open repair of chronic complicated type B aortic dissection using the open distal technique

AIM

The present study aimed to analyze early and late outcomes after open repair of chronic type B aortic dissection.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our cases of open descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) with chronic dissection from 1991-2013. Long-term survival and aortic reinterventions were analyzed and patient comorbidities were evaluated in order to determine the risk of adverse outcomes. Furthermore, the technique for "distal first approach" is described.

RESULTS

Between 1991 and 2013, 240 (40%) descending thoracic aortic repairs with associated chronic dissection were performed. Mean age is 59 years and 178 (74%) are men. The majority of patients (218, 91%) underwent repair using the adjunct of distal aortic perfusion with cerebral spinal fluid drainage. Early mortality was 8.3% (20/240). Permanent neurologic deficit occurred in 1.3% (3/240). Stroke occurred in 2.9% (7/240), and dialysis on discharge in 6% (12/240). 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year survival was 72%, 60%, 45%, and 39%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation on the operated segment was 97%, 94%, 94% and 94% at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Open repairs of chronic descending thoracic dissections can be performed with respectable morbidity and mortality. Risk of neurologic deficit remains low with use of adjuncts, and risk of reintervention on the involved aortic segment is also low. These results allow comparison with endovascular repair for chronic aortic dissection.

Open surgical repair for chronic type B aortic dissection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection (CBAD) remains complicated. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has supplanted open surgical repair (OSR) as the preferred surgical treatment for CBAD. Despite TEVAR's superior short-term results, much less is understood about its long-term outcomes. As much of the understanding of OSR originates from historical report, contemporary series, with modern surgical techniques and technologies, may present an alternative to TEVAR. The present systematic review will assess the short- and long-term outcomes of historic and contemporary series of OSR for CBAD.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to March 2014. Relevant studies with OSRs for chronic type B dissection were identified. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints. Studies were sub-classified into the pre-endovascular (historic series) and endovascular era (contemporary series) depending on whether the majority of cases were performed after 1999.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified for inclusion for quantitative analysis. Pooled short-term mortality was 11.1% overall, and 7.5% in the nine contemporary studies. Stroke, spinal cord ischemia, renal dysfunction, and reoperation for bleeding were 5.9%, 4.9%, 8.1%, and 8.1%, respectively, for the contemporary series. Absolute late reintervention was identified in 13.3% of patients overall, and in 11.3% of patients in the contemporary series. Aggregated survival at 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-years of all patients were 82.1%, 74.1%, 66.3%, and 50.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OSR for chronic type B dissection in the contemporary era offers acceptable results. Management approaches should be considered carefully, taking into account both short-term and long-term complications. More research is required to clarify specific indications for OSR and TEVAR in chronic type B dissections.