Efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus medical therapy for treatment of type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Techniques in endovascular therapy have evolved to offer a promising alternative to medical therapy alone for Type B aortic dissections (TBADs).

AIM

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare mortality and overall complications between thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and best medical therapy (BMT) in patients with TBADs.

METHODS

We included randomized control trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies that compared TEVAR and BMT for the treatment of type B aortic dissection. Multiple electronic databases were searched.

RESULTS

Thirty-two cohort studies including 150,836 patients were included. TEVAR was associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality rate than BMT (RR = 0.79, CI = 0.63, 0.99, P = 0.04), notably in patients ≥ 65 years of age (RR = 0.78, CI = 0.64, 0.95, P = 0.01). The TEVAR group had a significantly prolonged hospital stay (MD = 3.42, CI = 1.69, 5.13, P = 0.0001) and ICU stay (MD = 3.18, CI = 1.48, 4.89, P = 0.0003) compared to the BMT. BMT was associated with increased stroke risk (RR = 1.52, CI = 1.29, 1.79, P < 0.00001). No statistically significant differences in late mortality (1, 3, and 5 years) or intervention-related factors (acute renal failure, spinal cord ischemia, myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, and sepsis) were noted between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis revealed a significant association between the TEVAR group and a decreased mortality rate of TBAD compared to the medical treatment group, especially in patients aged 65 years or older. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

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.

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.

Readmission after early thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus medical management of acute type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the management of acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) has increased. Although the results from early studies were promising, larger randomized trials evaluating TEVAR are lacking. It is also unclear where sufficient equipoise exists for such trials. In the present study, we evaluated the number of readmissions and unplanned operations after TEVAR vs those after medical management as the initial treatment of acute uncomplicated TBAD and the frequency of each treatment in this population.

METHODS

We performed a multi-institutional retrospective review of patients with acute TBAD from 2015 to 2020 with the 1-year outcomes available, excluding patients with prior aortic intervention or chronic, iatrogenic or traumatic etiologies. The primary exposure was TEVAR vs medical management at the index admission. The patient demographics, clinical presentation, and imaging findings were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression for the primary outcomes of unplanned readmission and/or operation after the initial admission. The secondary outcomes were mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure requiring dialysis, retrograde type A dissection, and length of stay. We hypothesized that the readmissions would be higher with medical management.

RESULTS

A total of 216 patients with TBAD (47 with complicated and 169 with uncomplicated) from two large academic centers were identified. Of the 169 patients with uncomplicated TBAD, 83 (49%) had been treated medically and 86 (51%) had undergone TEVAR at the initial admission. No differences were found in the demographics or high-risk imaging features at presentation. The medically managed patients had had higher rates of unplanned readmission (34% vs 9%; P = .0001) and operation (28% vs 8%; P = .0007) but shorter lengths of stay (6.3 vs 13.1 days; P < .0001). No differences were found in mortality, although the rate of myocardial infarction was higher in the medically managed group (10.8% vs 2.3%; P = .02). Although 28% of the medically managed patients had later required operation, they had had morbidity and mortality similar to those of patients who had undergone initial TEVAR. Initial medical management was associated with unplanned readmission (odds ratio, 8.3; P = .02) and the need for operation (odds ratio, 4.56; P = .006). No differences were found in the outcomes according to the involved aortic zones.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, medical management of acute uncomplicated TBAD was associated with higher rates of readmission and the need for unplanned operation compared with TEVAR. However, no differences were found in the 1-year mortality for the patients for whom medical management had failed. Because one half of the patients had undergone medical management and one half had undergone early TEVAR, this finding suggests clinical equipoise for the treatment of acute uncomplicated TBAD. Therefore, a larger randomized trial appears warranted to determine whether a clear benefit exists for early TEVAR.

Endovascular treatment of complicated versus uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to analyze the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair performed for complicated and uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections.

METHODS

Patients from WL Gore's Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute type B aortic dissections were included, and data were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 5014 patients enrolled in the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment, 172 underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute type B aortic dissections. Of these repairs, 102 were for complicated acute type B aortic dissections and 70 were for uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections. There were 46 (45.1%) procedures related to aortic branch vessels versus 15 (21.4%) in complicated type B aortic dissections and uncomplicated type B aortic dissections (P = .002). The mean length of stay was 14.3 ± 10.6 days (median, 11; range, 2-75) versus 9.8 ± 7.9 days (median, 8; range, 0-42) in those with complicated type B aortic dissections versus those with uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections (P < .001). Thirty-day mortality was not different between groups (complicated type B aortic dissections 2.9% vs uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections 1.4%, P = .647), as well as aortic complications (8.8% vs 5.7%, P = .449). Aortic event-free survival was 62.9% ± 37.1% versus 70.6% ± 29.3% at 3 years (P = .696).

CONCLUSIONS

In the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment, thoracic endovascular aortic repair results for complicated type B aortic dissections versus uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections showed that 30-day mortality and perioperative complications were equally low for both. The midterm outcome was positive. These data confirm that thoracic endovascular aortic repair as the first-line strategy for treating complicated type B dissections is associated with a low risk of complications. Further studies with longer follow-up are necessary to define the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in uncomplicated acute type B dissections compared with medical therapy. However, in the absence of level A evidence from randomized trials, results of the uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection patient cohort treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair from registries are important to understand the related risk and benefit.

Initial Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair vs Medical Therapy for Acute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

Importance

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has increasingly been used for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) despite limited supporting data.

Objective

To assess whether initial TEVAR following uTBAD is associated with reduced mortality or morbidity compared with medical therapy alone.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services inpatient claims data for adults aged 65 years or older with index admissions for acute uTBAD from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2018, with follow-up available through December 31, 2019.

Exposures

Initial TEVAR was defined as TEVAR within 30 days of admission for acute uTBAD.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalizations, aorta-related and repeated aorta-related hospitalizations, and aortic interventions associated with initial TEVAR vs medical therapy. Propensity score inverse probability weighting was used.

Results

Of 7105 patients with eligible index admissions for acute uTBAD, 1140 (16.0%) underwent initial TEVAR (623 [54.6%] female; median age, 74 years [IQR, 68-80 years]) and 5965 (84.0%) did not undergo TEVAR (3344 [56.1%] female; median age, 76 years [IQR, 69-83 years]). Receipt of TEVAR was associated with region (vs South; Midwest: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.81]; P < .001; Northeast: aOR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.79]; P < .001), Medicaid dual eligibility (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.91; P = .003), hypertension (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.54; P = .03), peripheral vascular disease (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49; P = .03), and year of admission (2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were associated with greater odds of TEVAR compared with 2011). After inverse probability weighting, mortality was similar for the 2 strategies up to 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06), as were aorta-related hospitalizations (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99-1.27), aortic interventions (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20), and cardiovascular hospitalizations (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20). In a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality over a period of 1 year (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .03), 2 years (aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = .008), and 5 years (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P = .004).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, 16.0% of patients underwent initial TEVAR within 30 days of uTBAD, and receipt of initial TEVAR was associated with hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, region, Medicaid dual eligibility, and year of admission. Initial TEVAR was not associated with improved mortality or reduced hospitalizations or aortic interventions over a period of 5 years, but in a sensitivity analysis that included deaths within the first 30 days, initial TEVAR was associated with lower mortality. These findings, along with cost-effectiveness and quality of life, should be assessed in a prospective trial in the US population.

False lumen patency status and outcomes after endovascular repair of uncomplicated chronic type B dissection

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains a controversial treatment for uncomplicated chronic type B aortic dissection (cTBAD). This study was performed to investigate the postoperative outcomes of TEVAR, such as survival and reintervention, and the risk factors for prognoses.

METHODS

In total, 41 patients with uncomplicated cTBAD who underwent TEVAR from 2014 to 2021 were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: those with false lumen complete thrombosis (FLCT) and false lumen partial thrombosis (FLPT) based on computed tomography angiography (CTA) images. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate survival and freedom from reintervention. Binary logistic analysis was performed to estimate risk factors for partial thrombosis.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 31 (1-78) months, five deaths and six reinterventions had occurred at 5 years. By 1 week, thoracic FLCT had occurred in 23 (56.1%) patients and thoracic FLPT had occurred in 18 (43.9%). The rate of freedom from reintervention was significantly lower in the FLCT than in the FLPT group (p = 0.04). The 5-year survival rate of the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.14). Risk factors for thoracic FLPT were the distance between the re-entry site and the graft (p = 0.02) and the proximal oversizing ratio (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR is an effective and safe treatment for uncomplicated cTBAD and has a low mortality rate. Thoracic FLCT is associated with less reintervention, but overall survival is not impacted by this difference. Patients treated with TEVAR without certain risk factors can have a good prognosis.

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.

Impact of high-risk features and timing of repair for acute type B aortic dissections

OBJECTIVE

The new Society for Vascular Surgery/Society for Thoracic Surgery reporting standards for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) categorize clinical presentations of aortic dissection into uncomplicated, high-risk features (HRF), and complicated groups. Although it is accepted that complicated dissections require immediate repair, the optimal timing of repair for HRF has yet to be established. This study aims to identify the ideal timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for HRF, as well as outcomes associated with specific HRF.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for TEVARs performed for acute and subacute TBAD with HRF from 2014 to 2020. Rupture, malperfusion, and uncomplicated patients were excluded. HRF were defined per the guidelines as refractory hypertension, pain, or rapid expansion/aneurysm of more than 40 mm. The primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and 1-year survival with primary exposure variables being days from symptoms to repair and number of HRFs. Secondary outcomes were spinal cord ischemia, stroke, and retrograde type A dissection (RTAD).

RESULTS

Of the 1100 patients who met inclusion criteria, 811 had one HRF, 249 had two, and 40 had three. There were no significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes based on number of HRFs. There were 309 patients who underwent repair at 0 to 2 days, 262 at 3 to 6 days, 270 at 7 to 14 days, and 259 at 15 days or more. TEVAR performed at 15 days or more was independently associated with lower in-hospital/30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.38; P = .0388) and improved 1-year survival. Postoperative stroke was associated with earlier repair (0-2 days). There was no association of timing of repair with spinal cord ischemia, retrograde type A dissection or reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR for TBAD with HRF delayed at least 15 days from symptom onset is associated with improved survival, supporting the theory that it is best to delay TEVAR until the subacute phase. Additionally, TEVAR delayed at least 3 days is associated with a decrease in stroke. Having more than one HRF was not associated statistically with worse outcomes. Because the classification of HRF is relatively new and without guidelines for repair, this study highlights the risks of early intervention for HRF and suggests that these patients seem to benefit from at least a short stabilization period before TEVAR.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare the 5-year outcomes of acute versus subacute thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection (ATBAD).

METHODS

Between March 2008 and September 2018, 238 consecutive patients with uncomplicated ATBAD underwent TEVAR in the acute or subacute phase and were analyzed retrospectively. The primary end points were all-cause death and aortic-related death. The secondary end point was a composite of the outcomes of death from any cause, rupture, new dissection, retrograde type A aortic dissection, endoleak, and late reintervention. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. Weight-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimate with landmark analysis and weighted Cox model were performed to assess time-to-event outcomes.

RESULTS

In the inverse probability treatment weighting-adjusted population, the 30-day mortality was 1.5% in the acute TEVAR group and 0% in the subacute TEVAR group (P = .24). The incidence of 30-day adverse events occurred in 16.8% and 6.9% patients in the acute TEVAR and subacute TEVAR groups, respectively (P = .13). At 5 years, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-3.81; P = .39) and aortic-related death (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.34-3.60; P = .86) between the two groups. The composite outcomes occurred in 30 patients (23.0%) in the acute TEVAR group and 18 patients (22.3%) in the subacute TEVAR group, respectively (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36-1.25; P = .20). However, a landmark analysis of the composite outcomes indicated that there was a significant interaction between treatment effect and time (P_interaction = .01), with a significantly higher incidence of the composite outcomes in the acute TEVAR group compared with the subacute TEVAR group within 1 year (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.79; P = .02), and a comparable rate between 1 and 5 years (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.56-2.76; P = .59).

CONCLUSIONS

At the 5-year follow-up, no significant differences exist in the all-cause death and aortic-related death between acute and subacute TEVAR. However, acute TEVAR is associated with an increased rate of severe complications within 1 year, which suggests that performing TEVAR in the subacute phase of ATBAD may be the preferable option.

IMPACT OF THORACIC ENDOVASCULAR AORTIC REPAIR TIMING ON AORTIC REMODELING IN ACUTE TYPE B AORTIC INTRAMURAL HEMATOMA

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is increasingly utilized in the management of acute type B aortic intramural hematoma (TBIMH). Optimal timing for intervention has not been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate TEVAR timing on post-operative aortic remodeling.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent TEVAR for TBIMH from January 2008 to September 2018. Imaging was reviewed pre- and postoperatively. Primary data points included true lumen diameter (TLD) and total aortic diameter (TAD) at the site of maximal pathology. Primary endpoint was aortic remodeling evidenced by a TAD/TLD ratio closest to 1.0. Secondary outcome was occurrence of aortic-related adverse events and mortality (AREM): aortic rupture, aortic-related death, progression to dissection or need for aortic re-intervention within 12 months. Patients undergoing emergent TEVAR (within 24 hours, 'eTEVAR') were compared to the remainder - delayed TEVAR ('dTEVAR').

RESULTS

We analyzed 71 patients that underwent TEVAR FOR TBIMH; 25 underwent emergent TEVAR and 46 patients underwent dTEVAR (median: 5.5 days, range: 2-120 days). There were no differences in demographics and comorbidities and patients did not differ in presenting IMH thickness (12.6±3.1 mm vs. 11.3±4.1 mm, p=0.186) nor presenting TAD/TLD ratio (1.535±0.471 vs. 1.525±0.397, p=0.928) for eTEVAR and dTEVAR groups, respectively. eTEVAR patients had larger average presenting maximal descending aortic (DTA) diameter (45.8±14.3 mm vs. 38.2±7.5 mm, p=0.018) and higher incidence of penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) on presenting CT angiography (52.0% vs 21.7%, p=0.033). Thirty day mortality was 2/25 (8.0%) for eTEVAR and 2/45 (4.4%) for dTEVAR (p=0.602). Postoperative aortic remodeling was more complete in the dTEVAR group (1.23±0.12 vs. 1.33±0.15, p=0.004). Case-control matching (controlling for presenting DTA diameter and PAU) on 30 patients still showed better aortic remodeling in the dTEVAR group (1.125±0.100 vs 1.348±0.42, p<0.001). The incidence of AREM was higher in the eTEVAR - 6/25 (24.0%) - group compared to the dTEVAR group - 2/46 (4.3%). At 12 months, freedom from AREM was higher in the dTEVAR group (95.7% vs. 76.0%, p=0.011). Postoperative TAD/TLD ratio was the best predictor for late aortic-related adverse events (AUROC=0.825, p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

TEVAR for acute type B IMH within 24 hours of admission is associated with lower aortic remodeling and higher occurrence of late aortic related adverse events and mortality. Delaying TEVAR when clinically possible could improve aortic remodeling and aortic-related outcomes.

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.

Population-based incidence and outcomes of acute aortic dissection in Japan

AIMS

The population-based incidence and outcomes of acute aortic dissection (AAD) are still unknown because some patients are already dead on arrival, and the accurate diagnosis of AAD is difficult due to the low autopsy rate. We performed a population-based review of all patients with AAD in a well-defined geographical area in Japan between 2016 and 2018.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data of all patients with AAD at Miyazaki Prefectural Nobeoka Hospital (MPNH), which performs medical care for 120 000 residents, were collected retrospectively. The emergency medical service is dedicated to the transfer of all patients in this area to the MPNH. For all patients who were dead on arrival, the diagnosis of AAD was made by autopsy imaging (AI) using computed tomography. The age-adjusted incidence and mortality per 100 000 population were calculated using the Japanese population distribution model in 2015. The total incidence of AAD was 79 (type A: 64.5%, n = 51). Of those, 60.8% (31/51) of patients with type A and 21.4% (6/28) with type B were dead on arrival and diagnosed by AI. The 30-day mortality rates were 74.5% (38/51) in type A and 25.0% (7/28) in type B. The age-adjusted incidence and mortality of AAD per 100 000 inhabitants were 17.6 (type A: 11.3, type B: 6.2) and 9.9 (type A: 8.4, type B: 1.5), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The population-based survey of AAD showed that the age-adjusted incidence of AAD was two-fold higher than in previous reports, and the actual mortality rates were markedly higher due to the high incidence of dead-on-arrival.

A more proximal landing zone is preferred for thoracic endovascular repair of acute type B aortic dissections

OBJECTIVES

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become first line therapy for complicated acute type B aortic dissection (aTBAD). However, the strategy for optimal proximal landing zone remains to be determined. We compared early outcomes and late aortic-related adverse events in patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD with endograft deployment in proximal landing zone 2 versus 3.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within 6 weeks of diagnosis from 1/2008 to 12/2018. We excluded patients with connective tissue disorders and prior type A repair. Patients were divided into landing zone 2 TEVAR (Z2T) and zone 3 TEVAR (Z3T) groups. Z2 patients were divided between left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization (Z2R) versus LSA coverage without revascularization (Z2C). Groups were compared for need for aortic re-intervention within 36 months of initial admission and freedom from aortic related adverse events and mortality (AREM), defined as need for aortic re-intervention, aortic-related death or rupture.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients underwent TEVAR for complicated aTBAD within a mean of 4.1±7.8 days. 89.5% of patients had less than 2 cm of healthy proximal descending thoracic aorta. Landing zone was Z3T in 35 patients and 48 underwent Z2T: 10 Z2C and 38 Z2R. There were no differences between Z2T and Z3T in time from diagnosis to TEVAR, demographics, comorbidities and diameter aortic measurements. 30-day survival was 87.8%: 89.5% for Z2R, 88.6% for Z3 and 80.0 % for Z2C (p=0.610). Post-operative spinal cord ischemia rate was 3.7%: 2.7 % for Z2R, 0% for Z3T and 20.0% for Z2C (p=0.012). Post-operative thoracic aortic rupture was 2.2% in Z2 and 0 in Z3. Need for aortic re-intervention at 36 months post-TEVAR was lower for Z2T (10.4%) vs. Z3T (31.4%), p=0.025. Freedom from AREM at 36 months was higher in Z2T vs. Z3T - 87.5% vs. 68.6%, p= 0.048. Freedom from proximal re-intervention was higher in Z2T (95.8%) compared to Z3T (80.0%), p=0.019. Z3T deployment was predictive for AREM (OR:3.648,95%CI:1.161-11.465,p=0.027) and need for proximal re-intervention (OR: 5.542,95%CI:1.062-28.927,p=0.042).

CONCLUSION

Most patients with aTBAD have less than 2 cm of proximal healthy descending thoracic aorta. In patients treated for complicated aTBAD, zone 2 TEVAR is associated with a lower need for aortic re-intervention and aortic-related adverse events than zone 3 TEVAR. Patients may benefit from a more aggressive proximal landing zone with similar perioperative morbidity when zone 2 TEVAR is done with LSA revascularization.

Current status of the management and outcomes of acute aortic dissection in Japan: Analyses of nationwide Japanese Registry of All Cardiac and Vascular Diseases-Diagnostic Procedure Combination data

Background:

Despite recent advances in the diagnosis and management, the mortality of acute aortic dissection remains high. This study aims to clarify the current status of the management and outcome of acute aortic dissection in Japan.

Methods:

A total of 18,348 patients with acute aortic dissection (type A: 10,131, type B: 8217) in the Japanese Registry of All Cardiac and Vascular Diseases database between April 2012–March 2015 were studied. Characteristics, clinical presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed.

Results:

Seasonal onset variation (autumn- and winter-dominant) was found in both types. More than 90% of patients underwent computed tomography for primary diagnosis. The overall in-hospital mortality of types A and B was 24.3% and 4.5%, respectively. The mortality in type A patients managed surgically was significantly lower than in those not receiving surgery (11.8% (799/6788) vs 49.7% (1663/3343); p&lt;0.001). The number of cases managed endovascularly in type B increased 2.2-fold during the period, and although not statistically significant, the mortality gradually decreased (5.2% to 4.1%, p=0.49). Type A showed significantly longer length of hospitalization (median 28 days) and more than five times higher medical costs (6.26 million Japanese yen) than those in type B. The mean Barthel index at discharge was favorable in both type A (89.0±22.6) and type B (92.6±19.0). More than two-thirds of type A patients and nearly 90% of type B patients were directly discharged home.

Conclusions:

This nationwide study elucidated the clinical features and outcomes in contemporary patients with acute aortic dissections in real-world clinical practice in Japan.

Expanded Petticoat technique to promote the reduction of contrasted false lumen volume in patients with chronic type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the outcomes of our novel concept of expanded provisional extension to induce complete attachment strategy (Petticoat) for safety, durability, and remodeling of chronic type B dissections.

METHODS

Twenty patients with chronic type B aortic dissection with aneurysmal degeneration qualified for an expanded Petticoat strategy (stent graft in the thoracic, plus additional distal bare stent into the abdominal and infrarenal aorta, followed by parallel stent grafts into common iliac arteries). Computed tomography was performed preoperatively and at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The primary technical success was 100%. The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. At 12 months, favorable aortic remodeling and complete false lumen (FL) thrombosis were noted as 100% in the thoracic and infrarenal aorta. The volume of contrast-enhanced FL decreased from 186 ± 75.4 mL all along the dissection preoperatively (range, 70-360 mL), to 6.32 ± 5.4 mL postoperatively (range, 0.0-19.6 mL) and was only observed in the visceral aorta (P = .000089). Despite persistent flow in a small area of the FL, the maximal aortic size was stable in follow-up. Neither paraplegia nor visceral branch occlusion were noted in the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of aortic dissections with an expanded Petticoat strategy seems to be safe and offers good early results. It significantly reduced the volume of contrast enhanced FL. Further investigation of any subsequent results will be necessary.

Short term outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with thoracic aortic diseases

AIM AND BACKGROUND

Open surgical repair for thoracic aortic diseases is associated with a high perioperative mortality and morbidity. Most of type B aortic dissections are uncomplicated and are medically treated which carries a high mortality rate. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is the first-line therapy for isolated aneurysms of the descending aorta and complicated type B aortic dissection. The aim of this study is to test the safety of early thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection and patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

A total of 30 patients (24 men and 6 females; mean age 59 ± 8 years) with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection and descending thoracic aortic aneurysm who underwent endovascular aortic repair in National Heart Institute and Cairo University hospitals were followed up. Clinical follow-up data was done at one, three and twelve months thereafter. Clinical follow-up events included death, neurological deficits, symptoms of chronic mal-perfusion syndrome and secondary intervention. Multi-slice computed tomography was performed at three and six months after intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 30 patients, 24 patients had aortic dissection, and 6 patients had an aortic aneurysm. 7 patients underwent hybrid technique and the rest underwent the basic endovascular technique in whom success rate was 100%. Two patients developed type I endoleak, however both improved after short term follow up. The total mortality rate was 10% throughout the follow-up. Both death and endoleak occurred in subacute and chronic cases, while using TEVAR in acute AD and aneurysm showed no side effects. Early thoracic endovascular aortic repair showed better results and less complications.

CONCLUSION

Along with medical treatment, early thoracic endovascular aortic repair in uncomplicated type B aortic dissections and thoracic aortic aneurysms is associated with better outcome.

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.

Effects of Gender Differences on Short-term Outcomes in Patients with Type B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Gender-related differences in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) presentation and outcomes are not well understood. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of gender on short-term outcomes in patients with TBAD.

METHODS

Patients with TBAD were identified from the National Inpatient Sample datasets from 2009 to 2012 according to previously published methods. The primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and major complications (renal, cardiac, pulmonary, paraplegia, and stroke related) between men and women. An inverse propensity-weighted regression was used to balance comorbid and clinical presentation differences. Subgroup analyses were performed on those undergoing endovascular (thoracic endovascular aortic repair [TEVAR]) and open repair, and for elderly patients over the age of 70.

RESULTS

We identified 9855 patients with TBAD; women were fewer (43.6%, n = 4293) and presented at a later age (69.8 ± 15.5 vs. 62.8 ± 15.6, P < 0.001). Women had more comorbidities (median Elixhauser 4 [interquartile range, IQR 2-5] vs. 3 [IQR 2-5], P < 0.001) and were more often managed nonoperatively (87.4% vs. 81.8%, P < 0.001) compared with men. For those undergoing intervention, 58% (n = 903) had open repair and TEVAR rates were higher in women compared with men (45.6% vs. 40.0%, P < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality rates did not differ significantly by gender (male: 11.6% vs. female: 10.7%). In an adjusted propensity-weighted regression, gender did not significantly affect in-hospital mortality or stroke rates, but women were less likely to have acute renal failure during their hospitalization and more likely to experience cardiac events when undergoing open repair. Elderly women were also less likely to experience acute renal failure but had higher odds of cardiac events regardless of intervention compared with elderly men.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with men, women with TBAD presented at a later age, were more likely to undergo TEVAR, sustain a perioperative cardiac event with open surgery, and were less likely to experience acute renal complications overall. Elderly women were additionally more likely to sustain a cardiac event regardless of operative status. Future studies should attempt to identify anatomic and epidemiologic reasons for these differences.

Standardized Protocol to Analyze Computed Tomography Imaging of Type B Aortic Dissections

Purpose: To propose a standard measuring protocol for type B aortic dissections so as to improve comparability between studies reporting aortic dimensions. Methods: Fifteen computed tomography (CT) scans of type B aortic dissections were measured with a standard protocol by 2 independent observers using postprocessing software. The following parameters were assessed: true, false, and total lumen diameter; true and false lumen volume; and entry tear size, location, and number. Diameters were measured in a perpendicular plane at 2, 10, and 20 cm from the left subclavian artery and 5 cm from the most distal renal artery. True lumen volume was assessed from the left subclavian artery to the aortic bifurcation, while the false lumen volume was from the start to end up to the aortic bifurcation. Entry tear location was assessed in relation to the left subclavian artery. Intra- and interobserver repeatability and agreement were evaluated using the Bland-Altman method, an a priori set of acceptable differences, and Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC). Results: Intra- and interobserver mean differences for aortic diameter and true and false lumen volumes were generally within the limits of agreement and the a priori differences; the LCCC showed excellent agreement. Entry tear location, size, and number were difficult to measure in a repeatable manner, with inconsistent correlation coefficients, especially between the 2 observers. Conclusion: This protocol showed acceptable repeatability for aortic diameter and aortic volume measurements. Assessment of entry tears proved challenging and associated with less favorable results. Additionally, investigators are urged to be more transparent regarding the measurement methodology used in studies describing aortic dimensions.

Operative Results and Clinical Features of Chronic Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection: Examination of 234 Patients Over 6 Years

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Recently, the indications for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have been expanding, and the applicability of TEVAR for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is proposed with regard to the high mortality of open surgery for chronic TBAD. TEVAR in the acute phase may lead to remodeling of the false lumen (FL), but it is controversial whether it completely resolves the aortic expansion in the chronic phase. In this study, operative results and the relationship between FL status and the time before surgical intervention were retrospectively analyzed.

METHODS

From January 2008 to September 2013, 234 patients underwent open surgery for chronic TBAD. Most patients were on left heart bypass. By considering Japanese aortic disease treatment guidelines and the smaller physique of Japanese patients, operative indications were aneurysm >50 mm in diameter or rapid aneurysm enlargement of >5 mm in a 6 month period.

RESULTS

In 180 cases, the FL was patent. The mean interval between onset of TBAD and operation was 61 ± 54 months. There was no significant difference between patients in the patent FL group and those in the thrombosed FL group (p = .44). Mean ratio of FL diameter to maximum aortic diameter (FL/AD) was 0.64 ± 0.21. There was no correlation between FL and AD before the operation (r = .12). Descending thoracic aortic replacement (DTAR) was performed in 127 cases and thoracic ascending aortic replacement (TAAR) in 107 cases (Crawford type I, n = 9; Crawford type II, n = 65; Crawford type III and IV, n = 22, respectively; Safi type V, n = 11). The overall operative mortality was 6.8%: 3.9% (5/127) for DTAR and 10.3% (11/107) for TAAR. The three year survival was 86.7, and the freedom from re-intervention rate was 97.0%.

CONCLUSION

Enlargement of uncomplicated TBAD in the chronic phase was poorly related to FL status and the results of open repair have improved. However, further prospective study is necessary.

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.