The misnomer of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection

Aortic Arch Debranching and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) for Type B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Since its introduction, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has revolutionized the treatment of type B aortic dissections (TBADs). However, the proximal aspect of the aortic pathology treated may infringe on the origin of the left subclavian artery or even more proximally. Hence, to ensure durable outcomes, the origin of these vessels needs to be covered, but an extra-anatomical bypass is required to perfuse vital branches, known as aortic arch debranching. This series aims to describe and delineate the disparities of aortic arch debranching during TEVAR for TBAD.

METHODS

A retrospective review and analysis of a multicenter international database was conducted to identify patients with TBAD treated with TEVAR between 2005 and 2021. Data analyzed included patient demographics, disease characteristics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes with follow-up on mortality and reintervention. All statistical analyses were carried out using IBM SPSS 26. Patient survival was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and a P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were included in the analysis, of which 27 (46.6%) presented with complicated disease and 31 were uncomplicated, of which 10 (17.2%) were classed as high risk and 21 (36.2%) low risk. Zone 2 was the most common proximal landing zone for the stent graft. Left subclavian artery bypass was performed selectively (26%), with 1 stroke occurring, likely due to embolic reasons. A further 6 underwent more proximal aortic debranching before TEVAR (10%) and was a significant risk factor for mortality and the number of stents deployed. The overall rates of reintervention and mortality were 17.2% (n = 10) and 29.3% (n = 17).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic arch debranching and TEVAR for TBAD is associated with significant mortality. Future developments to treat aortic arch pathology could incorporate branched graft devices, eliminating the need for debranching, improving stroke rates, and reducing future reinterventions.

Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: Challenges in Diagnosis and Categorisation

BACKGROUND

Acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a rare disease that is likely under-diagnosed in the UK. As a progressive, dynamic clinical entity, many patients initially diagnosed with uncomplicated TBAD deteriorate, developing end-organ malperfusion and aortic rupture (complicated TBAD). An evaluation of the binary approach to the diagnosis and categorisation of TBAD is needed.

METHODS

A narrative review of the risk factors predisposing patients to progression from unTBAD to coTBAD was undertaken.

RESULTS

Key high-risk features predispose the development of complicated TBAD, such as maximal aortic diameter > 40 mm and partial false lumen thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

An appreciation of the factors that predispose to complicated TBAD would aid clinical decision-making surrounding TBAD.

Cost analysis of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in type B aortic dissection: How much does quality cost?

BACKGROUND

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-threatening medical emergency that affects an estimated 3-4 people per 100,000 annually, with 40% of cases classified as type B AD (TBAD). TBAD can be further classified as being complicated (co-TBAD) or uncomplicated (un-TBAD) based on the presence or absence of certain features such as malperfusion and rupture. TBAD can be managed conservatively with optimal medical therapy (OMT), or invasively with open surgical repair (OSR) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), depending on several factors such as type of TBAD and its clinical acuity. The cost-effectiveness, or cost-benefit profile, of these strategies must be given equal consideration. However, TBAD studies featuring cost analyses are limited within the literature. This narrative review aims to address the gap in the literature on cost-effectiveness of TBAD treatments by providing an overview of cost analyses comparing OMT with TEVAR in un-TBAD and TEVAR with OSR in co-TBAD. Another aim is to provide a market analysis of the commercially available TEVAR devices.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using several search engines including PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase to identify and extract relevant studies.

RESULTS

Several TEVAR devices are available commercially on the global market costing $12,000-19,495. Nevertheless, the Terumo Aortic RELAY® stent graft seems to be the most cost-effective, yielding highly favourable clinical outcomes. Despite the higher initial cost of TEVAR, evidence in the literature strongly suggest that it is superior to OMT for un-TBAD on the long-term. In addition, TEVAR is well established in the literature as being gold-standard repair technique for co-TBAD, replacing OSR by offering a more optimal cost-benefit profile through lower costs and improved results.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of TEVAR has revolutionized the field of aortovascular surgery by offering a highly efficacious and long-term cost-effective treatment for TBAD.

Fate and Consequences of the False Lumen after TEVAR in Type B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) occurs due to an entry tear in the intimal layer of the aorta distal to the origin of the left subclavian artery where blood enters the newly formed false lumen (FL) and extends distally or proximally to form a dissection over an indeterminate length of the aorta which, over time, may eventually rupture. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) aims to seal off the entry tear proximally with the stent-graft, occluding the origin of the dissection and excluding the FL. Nevertheless, in some cases, the perfusion to the FL is maintained, hindering the aortic remodelling process and increasing the risk of aneurysmal degeneration and rupture, particularly in the abdominal aorta where evidence suggest that remodelling is slower. This review examines the long-term effects of a patent or partially thrombosed FL on clinical outcomes following TEVAR in TBAD, also highlighting the pathological processes behind negative aortic remodelling. Another aim of this review is to provide an overview and appraisal of the currently available techniques for managing a patent or partially thrombosed FL to prevent long-term morbidity occurring.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed using several search engines including PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase to identify and extract relevant studies.

RESULTS

Evidence in the literature show that a partially thrombosed FL is more dangerous than a patent FL due to the occlusion of the distal re-entry tears, impeding outflow and increasing mean arterial and diastolic pressures, whereas the latter is decompressed via distal re-entry sites. FL thrombosis and satisfactory remodelling is sometimes achieved in as few as 40% of patients after TEVAR due to the maintained perfusion of the FL either at the level of the thoracic or abdominal aorta. However, although the thoracic aorta is predominantly covered by the TEVAR stent-graft, poorer remodelling and more dilation is seen in the abdominal aorta. Several techniques are available to embolize the FL, including the Provisional Extension to Induce Complete Attachment, Stent Assisted Balloon Induced Intimal Disruption and Relamination in Aortic Dissection Repair, candy-plug, and Knickerbocker techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of TBAD is invariably TEVAR to seal off the proximal entry tear while extending the repair distally to completely exclude the FL. A risk of aortic wall dilatation distal to TEVAR stent-graft remains; hence, regular monitoring and accurate imaging are essential. At present, a patent FL can be treated using a range of different endovascular techniques.