A Retrospective Observational Study to Assess Prescription Pattern in Patients with Type B Aortic Dissection and Treatment Outcome

Prescription pattern and effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs in patients with aortic dissection who underwent surgery

Background: Surgical patients with aortic dissection often require multiple antihypertensive drugs to control blood pressure. However, the prescription pattern and effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs for these patients are unclear. We aimed to investigate the prescription pattern and effectiveness of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in surgical patients with aortic dissection. Methods: Newly diagnosed aortic dissection patients who underwent surgery, aged >20 years, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017 were identified. Patients with missing data, in-hospital mortality, aortic aneurysms, or congenital connective tissue disorders, such as Marfan syndrome, were excluded. Prescription patterns of antihypertensive drugs were identified from medical records of outpatient visits within 90 days after discharge. Antihypertensive drugs were classified into four classes: 1) β-blockers, 2) calcium channel blockers (CCBs), 3) renin-angiotensin system, and 4) other antihypertensive drugs. Patients were classified according to the number of classes of antihypertensive drugs as follows: 1) class 0, no exposure to antihypertensive drugs; 2) class 1, antihypertensive drugs of the same class; 3) class 2, antihypertensive drugs of two classes; 4) class 3, antihypertensive drugs of three classes; or 5) class 4, antihypertensive drugs of four classes. The primary composite outcomes included rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection, death due to aortic dissection, and all-cause mortality. Results: Most patients were prescribed two (28.87%) or three classes (28.01%) of antihypertensive drugs. In class 1, β-blockers were most commonly used (8.79%), followed by CCBs (5.95%). In class 2, β-blockers+CCB (10.66%) and CCB+RAS (5.18%) were the most common drug combinations. In class 3, β-blockers + CCB+RAS (14.84%) was the most prescribed combination. Class 0 had a significantly higher hazard of the composite outcome (HR, 2.1; CI, 1.46-3.02; p < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR, 2.34; CI, 1.56-3.51; p < 0.001) than class 1. There were no significant differences in hazards for rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection among classes. Conclusion: Among operated patients with type A aortic dissection, no specific type of antihypertensive drug was associated with a better outcome, whereas among those with type B aortic dissection, the use of β-blockers and CCBs was related to a significantly lower risk of the composite outcome.

An Evidenced-Based Review of Emergency Target Blood Pressure Management for Acute Aortic Dissection

Objective

To summarize the best evidence of emergency target blood pressure management for acute aortic dissection and provide guidance for evidence-based practice of emergency target blood pressure management.

Methods

According to the "6S" evidence pyramid model, the evidence of emergency target blood pressure management of acute aortic dissection in various foreign databases and websites of professional associations from January 1, 2010, to August 1, 2022, was retrieved, including clinical decision-making, guidelines, expert consensus, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series. Two researchers used the corresponding document quality evaluation tools to evaluate the documents and extracted and summarized the evidence of documents above grade B.

Results

A total of 17 articles were included, including 6 clinical decision-making articles, 5 guidelines, 2 expert consensus articles, 1 systematic review article, 1 randomized controlled trial article, 1 cohort study article, and 1 case series article, forming 36 best evidences, including 9 topics, which are target value setting, management strategy, disease observation, medical history collection, monitoring methods, vasoactive drugs, nonvasoactive drugs, related examinations, and patient education.

Conclusion

The best evidence summarized provides a reference for doctors and nurses in the emergency department to manage the emergency target blood pressure of patients with acute aortic dissection. It is recommended that doctors and nurses in the emergency department follow the best evidence summarized to develop individualized target blood pressure management plan for patients.

Evaluating Prescription Pattern and Effectiveness of Antihypertensive Drugs in Non-Operated Aortic Dissection Patients

INTRODUCTION

Aortic dissection (AD) is a life-threatening disease. However, the effectiveness of different strategies of antihypertensive therapies in non-operated AD patients is still unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were classified into five groups (groups 0-4) based on the number of classes of antihypertensive drugs, including β-blockers, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) agents (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and the renin-inhibitors), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and other antihypertensive drugs, were prescribed within 90 days after discharge. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of re-hospitalization associated with AD, referral for aortic surgery, and all-cause death.

RESULTS

A total of 3932 non-operated AD patients were included in our study. The most prescribed antihypertensive drugs were CCBs, followed by β-blockers and ARBs. Within group 1, compared to other antihypertensive drugs, patients using RAS agents (aHR, 0.58; p = 0.005) had a significantly lower risk of occurrence of the outcome. Within group 2, the risk of composite outcomes was lower in patients using β-blockers + CCBs (aHR, 0.60; p = 0.004) or CCBs + RAS agents (aHR, 0.60; p = 0.006) than in those using RAS agents + others.

CONCLUSION

For non-operated AD patients, RAS agents, β-blockers, or CCBs should be given in a different strategy of combinations to reduce the hazard of AD-related complications compared to other agents.

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.