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

Long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for chronic Stanford type B aortic dissection

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to report the long-term outcomes of proximal thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for chronic Stanford type B aortic dissection (cTBAD).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 48 cases of patients with cTBAD who underwent proximal TEVAR in Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University from January 2010 to September 2013. The preoperative and postoperative imaging examinations, overall survival rate, aortic-related survival rate, and freedom from reintervention rate data were collected to evaluate aortic remodeling and clinical outcomes. The enrolled patients received follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months following treatment and annually thereafter.

RESULTS

A total of 48 patients (mean age, 58.3 ± 10.6 years; men:women, 40:8) were included, of which 38 cases (79.2%) were uncomplicated dissection and 10 cases (20.8%) were complicated. The mean follow-up time was 48.7 ± 40 months (1-120 months). The mean time interval from the initial procedure to reintervention was 50.6 ± 32.7 months (11-98 months). The following changes were observed at preoperative versus last follow-up timepoints. Descending aortic level: true lumen, 19.2 ± 7.01 mm vs. 36.9 ± 9.53 mm (p < 0.001); false lumen, 30.47 ± 15.89 mm vs. 19.16 ± 15.33 mm (p < 0.001); maximum diameter, 49.67 ± 13.96 mm vs. 56.66 ± 14.95 mm (p = 0.018). Diaphragm level: true lumen, 16.24 ± 5.41 mm vs. 24.41 ± 8.04 mm (p < 0.001); false lumen, 12.37 ± 11.49 mm vs. 14.92 ± 12.25 mm (p = 0.196); and maximum diameter, 34 ± 7.81 mm vs. 38.04 ± 7.7 mm (p < 0.001). The freedom from reintervention rate was 81% in 5 years and 50.6% in 10 years. The overall 10-years survival rate was 83% (6 of 48), and the aortic-related survival rate was 92.3% (3 of 48).

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR is a safe and effective proximal repair intervention for cTBAD that can reliably induce the positive remodeling of the descending aorta.

Mid-term results of distal anastomosis to the true lumen for chronic type B aortic dissection

We investigated whether distal anastomosis to the true lumen in open surgical repair of descending aorta for chronic type B aortic dissection improved the long-term outcomes with aortic remodeling. We retrospectively reviewed 71 patients with chronic type B aortic dissection, excluding those with connective tissue disorder, from October 2001 to June 2021. The patients who underwent distal true lumen anastomosis (group T, n = 36) were compared to those with both lumens' anastomosis (group B, n = 35), regarding survival, overall and distal aortic events. The growth rates of the distal aorta (maximum diameter in descending thoracic, suprarenal and infrarenal abdominal aorta) were also investigated. Median age was significantly higher in group T (T; 66 vs B; 60, P = .001). Group T had significantly higher rates of complete and partial thrombosis formation in the false lumen than group B postoperatively (26.9 vs 0%, P = .01 for complete, 65.4 vs 3.9%, P < .0001 for partial, respectively). At median follow-up for 6.8 years of 63 patients (88.7%), survival, overall and distal aortic event-free rates, and the growth rates of the distal aorta were not significantly different between the groups. Distal anastomosis to the true lumen did not improve mid-term survival, aortic event-free rates and the growth rates of the distal aorta compared with that of both lumens for chronic type B aortic dissection.

Management of acute aortic syndrome with evolving individualized precision medicine solutions: Lessons learned over two decades and literature review

Background

Thoracoabdominal acute aortic syndrome is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We aim to scrutinize our evolving strategies for acute aortic syndrome (AAS) management using minimally invasive and adaptive surgical techniques over two decades.

Methods

This is a longitudinal observational study at our tertiary vascular centre from 2002 to 2021. Out of 22,349 aortic referrals, we performed 1,555 aortic interventions over twenty years. Amongst 96 presented with symptomatic aortic thoracic pathology, 71 patients had AAS. Our primary endpoint is combined aneurysm-related and cardiovascular-related mortality.

Results

There were 43 males and 28 females (5 Traumatic Aortic Transection (TAT), 8 Acute Aortic Intramural Hematoma (IMH), 27 Symptomatic Aortic Dissection (SAD) and 31 Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm (TAA) post-SAD) with a mean age of 69. All the patients with AAS received optimal medical therapy (OMT), but TAT patients underwent emergency thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Fifty-eight patients had an aortic dissection, of which 31 developed TAA. These 31 patients with SAD and TAA received OMT initially and interval surgical intervention with TEVAR or sTaged hybrId sinGle lumEn Reconstruction (TIGER). To increase our landing area, we performed a left subclavian chimney graft with TEVAR in twelve patients. The average follow-up duration was 78.2 months, and eleven patients (15.5%) had combined aneurysm and cardiovascular-related mortality. Twenty-six percentage of the patients developed endoleaks (EL), of which 15% required re-intervention for type II and III. Four patients who had paraplegia (5.7%) and developed renal failure died. None of our patients had a stroke or bowel ischaemia. Twenty patients had OMT, eight of these were patients with acute aortic hematoma, and all eight died within 30 days of presentation.

Conclusion

Acute aortic hematoma is a sinister finding, which must be closely monitored, and consideration is given to early intervention. Paraplegia and renal failure result in an increased mortality rate. TIGER technique with interval TEVAR has salvaged complex situations in young patients. Left subclavian chimney increases our landing area and abolishes SINE. Our experience shows that minimally invasive techniques could be a viable option for AAS.

Triple-Branched Stent Graft Implantation for Acute Non-A-non-B Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection remains controversial. Triple-branched stent graft (TBSG) implantation has been used to treat acute type A aortic dissection. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of TBSG as a treatment for acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection.

METHODS

Fifty patients with non-A-non-B dissection received TBSG implantation in our center between January 2014 and December 2019. Early mortality, morbidity, and dissected aorta remodeling during follow-up were calculated.

RESULTS

There were no deaths in-hospital or within 30 days. Postoperative complications included pneumonia (n = 12), acute kidney injury (n = 6; preoperative renal malperfusion, n = 4), transient cerebral injury (n = 6; preoperative cerebral malperfusion, n = 4), pleural effusion (n = 4), and pericardial effusion (n = 2). During follow-up, 1 patient experienced a stroke, and 2 patients required secondary interventional therapy for residual dissection below the level of the TBSG. All implanted TBSGs had good positioning, and all sidearm stent graft grafts were fully patent. No retrograde aortic dissection or type I endoleak was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

TBSG implantation for acute non-A-non-B aortic dissection had a low incidence of mortality and morbidity, featuring good remodeling of the dissected aortic wall during follow-up. The early outcomes of this technique were satisfactory.

Analysis of Postoperative Remodeling Characteristics after Modular Inner Branched Stent-Graft Treatment of Aortic Arch Pathologies Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

The modular inner branched stent-graft (MIBSG), a novel interventional therapy, has demonstrated good effects in the endovascular treatment of aortic arch pathologies, especially those involving the supra-aortic branches. Nevertheless, the long-term efficacy of the MIBSG and in-depth quantitative evaluation of postoperative outcomes remain to be examined. Moreover, the regularity of postoperative vascular remodeling induced by MIBSG implantation has yet to be explored. To address these questions, we constructed four models (normal, preoperative, 1 week postoperative, and 6 months postoperative) based on a single patient case to perform computational fluid dynamics simulations. The morphological and hemodynamic characteristics, including the velocity profile, flow rate distribution, and hemodynamic parameter distribution (wall shear stress and its derivative parameters), were investigated. After MIBSG implantation, the morphology of the supra-aortic branches changed significantly, and the branch point moved forward to the proximal ascending aorta. Moreover, the curvature radius of the aortic arch axis continued to change. These changes in morphology altered the characteristics of the flow field and wall shear stress distribution. As a result, the local forces exerted on the vessel wall by the blood led to vessel remodeling. This study provides insight into the vascular remodeling process after MIBSG implantation, which occurs as a result of the interplay between vascular morphological characteristics and blood flow characteristics.

Aortic arch surgery for type B aortic dissection: How far should we go? The value of a hybrid approach

Traditionally, the management of type B aortic dissection has been the domain of the vascular surgeons. Timing and type of intervention still generate debate. We sought to review our early experience with the treatment of this condition based on a hybrid approach following an aortic multi-disciplinary team meeting involving close cooperation between cardiac surgeons, vascular surgeons, interventional radiologists, vascular anesthetists, and cardiac anesthetists. Four patients (age 41-56 years; 3 males; 1 female) with type B aortic dissection underwent aortic arch surgery through a hybrid approach: one elective procedure consisting of ascending aorta and hemi-arch replacement with debranching followed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR); one redo procedure requiring aortic arch replacement with hybrid frozen elephant trunk; two acute presentations (aortic arch replacement and debranching followed by TEVAR; AVR with ascending aorta, arch, and proximal descending thoracic aorta replacement with conventional elephant trunk and debranching). Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest was required in three patients. Despite respiratory complications and slightly prolonged postoperative course, all patients survived without onset of stroke, paraplegia, malperfusion, endoleak, or need for re-exploration. Follow-up remains satisfactory. Different factors may affect outcome following complex aortic procedures. Nevertheless, close cooperation between cardiac surgeons, vascular surgeons, and interventional radiologists may reduce potential for complications and address aspects that may not be completely within the domain of individual specialists.

[Chronic type B aortic dissection-what to do?]

BACKGROUND

Chronic type B aortic dissection requires optimal medical therapy. However, secondary complications like organ or extremity malperfusion or development of aneurysmal dilatation require interventional therapy.

OBJECTIVES

Presentation of different endovascular treatment options for complications of chronic type B aortic dissection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Analysis of current literature with regard to indications, techniques, results, and differential indications of interventional techniques for the treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection complications.

RESULTS

Endovascular implantation of an aortic stent graft is interventional standard therapy for treatment of aneurysmal dilatation of the aorta following type B dissection. Technical problems are the proximal and distal landing zones and the treatment of persistent flow in the false lumen.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular treatment of chronic complicated type B aortic dissection is increasingly used compared to open surgical treatment because not only are more complex stent grafts (fenestrated and branched devices) available but also because of newly developed techniques for effective occlusion of flow in the false lumen (e.g., candy plug).

Risk profile analysis of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair: Laboratory and radiographic predictors

BACKGROUND

There is emerging evidence to support pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) intervention for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (unTBAD). Pre-emptive intervention would be particularly beneficial in patients that have a higher baseline risk of progressing to complicated TBAD (coTBAD). There remain debate on the optimal clinical, laboratory, morphological, and radiological parameters, which would identify the highest-risk patients that would benefit most from pre-emptive TEVAR.

AIM

This review summarizes evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was carried out on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Scopus to collate all research evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients RESULTS: At present, there are no clear clinical guidelines using risk-stratification to inform the selection of unTBAD patients for TEVAR. However, there are noticeable literature trends that can assist with the identification of the most at-risk unTBAD patients. Patients are at particular risk when they have refractory pain and/or hypertension, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), larger aortic diameter, and larger entry tears. These risks should be considered alongside factors that increase the procedural risk of TEVAR to create a well-balanced approach. Advances in biomarkers and imaging are likely to identify more pertinent parameters in the future to optimize the development of balanced, risk-stratified treatment protocols.

CONCLUSION

There are a variety of risk profiling parameters that can be used to identify the high-risk unTBAD patient, with novel biomarkers and imaging parameters emerging. Longer-term evidence verifying these parameters would be ideal. Further randomized controlled trials and multicentre registry analyses are also warranted to guide risk-stratified selection protocols.

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.

[Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch - Endovascular Therapy Today and in the Future]

Pathologies in the region of the aortic arch may occur in isolation, but adjacent segments of the thoracic aorta - the ascending or descending aorta - are much more commonly affected. The first surgical procedures to treat the aortic arch were performed nearly six decades ago. Despite numerous improvements and innovations in the 20th and early 21st centuries, these procedures are still associated with relevant operative mortality and neurological complication rates. Endovascular techniques and modern hybrid procedures are increasingly expanding the therapeutic spectrum in the aortic arch, although the open surgical approach is currently still the gold standard. Endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysm was first performed in the early 1990s in the infrarenal abdominal aorta. It was not long before the first attempts at endovascular therapy were made for the treatment of the aortic arch. In 1996, Inoue et al. reported the use of the first commonly used endoprosthesis to treat aneurysms in the aortic arch. Continuous improvements and refinements in implantation techniques and also implanted material have resulted in endovascular therapy now being an increasingly important option compared to open surgical procedures in the descending thoracic and abdominal aorta and has partially replaced them as the gold standard. This review article aims to provide an overview of the prerequisites, results, but also limitations of endovascular surgery of the aortic arch.

The Effect of Intravenous and Oral Beta-Blocker Use in Patients with Type B Thoracic Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers have become the cornerstone for medical management in patients with chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). However, the effect of being on and/or receiving intravenous beta-blockers during hospitalization on outcomes of surgical repair of TBAD is not fully described. We sought to investigate this association during open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular (Endo) intervention for nontraumatic TBAD.

METHODS

The Premier Healthcare Database was inquired (June/2009-March/2015). Patients with nontraumatic isolated TBAD were identified via ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedural codes. Patients with codes that indicated TAAD were excluded. In-hospital mortality, cardiac complications (CHF, MI, arrythmia) and stroke were evaluated. Log binomial regression analyses with bootstrapping were performed to assess the relative risk of adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1,752 were admitted for OSR (54.3%) and Endo (45.7%) TBAD repair. Use of oral beta blocker (BB) was 16.0% in OSR and 56.4% in Endo groups. In each arm, patients on BB were more likely to be diabetic, on aspirin or statin and more likely to receive additional IV BB than nonBB patients. There was no significant difference in age, sex, race, or prior history of CHF between BB and nonBB groups. Mortality was proportionally lower in patients on BB in OSR group (7.9% vs. 16.7%; P = 0.006) and Endo (3.3% vs. 9.2%; P < 0.001). The adjusted relative risk for mortality and stroke were significantly lower in oral BB recipients compared with none [aRR (95% CI): 0.53 (0.32-0.90) and 0.46 (0.25-0.87); both P ≤ 0.02]. IV metoprolol was the only IV BB that reduced mortality [aRR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.46-0.85); P = 0.003]. A dose of ≤10 mg was associated with significant mortality reduction: 6.3% (3.0-9.5%) compared with 8.1% (4.6-11.6%) in no IV BB group. Cardiac complications were not affected by BB use.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with nontraumatic TBAD, use of oral BB was associated with significant protection against in-hospital mortality and stroke following repair. Metoprolol was the only Intravenous BB type associated with improved survival. Further research is warranted to elucidate the effect of beta-blockers on the long-term surgical outcomes of TBAD.

Endovascular therapies for Type B Aortic Dissection

Aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition resulting from a tear in the intimal layer of the aorta, requiring emergent diagnosis and prompt multi-disciplinary management strategy for best patient outcomes. While type A dissection involving ascending aorta is best managed surgically due to high early mortality, type B aortic dissection (TBAD) involving descending aorta generally has better outcomes with conservative management and medical therapy as primary strategy is favored. However, there has been a recent paradigm shift in management of TBAD due to late aneurysmal degeneration of TBAD increasing morbidity and mortality at longer-term. Late surgical intervention can be prevented by early endovascular intervention when combined with optimal medical therapy. In this narrative review, we explore available literature on different endovascular therapies for TBAD in different populations of patients.

Fenestrated versus debranching thoracic endovascular aortic repair for endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch and descending aortic lesions

BACKGROUND

Cervical debranching, followed by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), is well-established for treating aortic arch lesions. However, total endovascular repair with fenestrated endografts has not been adequately studied. Thus, we performed a comparison of the two techniques.

METHODS

The present study was a single-center, retrospective study comparing the treatment of thoracic aortic lesions with custom-made fenestrated stent-grafts (fenestrated TEVAR [fTEVAR]) with a single fenestration for the left subclavian artery (LSA), a scallop for the left carotid artery, and hybrid repair with a thoracic stent-graft and cervical debranching of the LSA. Emergency cases were excluded.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2018, 19 patients (58% male) underwent elective fTEVAR (group A) and 17 patients (82% male) underwent debranching TEVAR (dTEVAR; group B). The mean age ± standard deviation in group A was 65.8 ± 2 years and 68 ± 3 years in group B. Left carotid-subclavian bypass was performed in 15 of 17 patients (88%) and transposition of the LSA in 2 of 17 patients (12%) in group B. The two groups were comparable regarding comorbidities, except for peripheral arterial disease: 5 of 19 patients in group A (26%) and none in group B had had peripheral arterial disease (P = .049). Dissection or post-dissection aneurysm was the indication for treatment in 6 of 19 patients in the fTEVAR group (group A) and in 12 of 17 patients in the dTEVAR group (group B; 31.6% vs 70.6%; P = .04). The indication for the remaining patients was a degenerative aortic aneurysm. Technical success was achieved in all cases, except for one case of dTEVAR owing to a type Ia endoleak. The mean endovascular operative time was 191 ± 120 minutes for fTEVAR and 130 ± 75 minutes for dTEVAR (P = NS). The mean operative time for the debranching procedure was 181 ± 97 minutes. No deaths or major strokes had occurred in the early postoperative period (30 days). Of the 17 patients in group B, 5 (29.4%) had experienced a local complication related to the debranching procedure. The mean follow-up was 14.6 ± 2 months for group A and 17 ± 2 months for group B. Of the 19 patients in group A and 17 patients in group B, 2 (10.5%) and 6 (35.3%) had required an unplanned reintervention related to the thoracic stent-graft during the follow-up period, respectively (P = NS). The estimated freedom from unplanned reintervention at 12 months was 86% for group A and 81% for group B. Primary patency of the LSA stent-graft or the carotid-subclavian bypass/transposition was 100% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques showed excellent midterm patency rates for the target vessel and high technical success rate. The operation times were shorter for the fTEVAR group and complications related to the debranching procedure were avoided.

Profound Hypotension before Aortic Clamping Can Exacerbate Spinal Cord Ischemic Injury after Aortic Surgery in Rats

Spinal cord ischemia is one of the most serious complications of aortic repair in patients with acute aortic syndrome. However, the effect of hypotension before aortic clamping on spinal cord injury has not been documented. A total of 48 male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into four groups: the sham group; control group (mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 90% of baseline value before aortic clamping); mild hypotension group (MAP < 80%); and profound hypotension group (MAP < 60%). Spinal cord ischemia was induced using a balloon-tipped catheter placed in the descending thoracic aorta. Neurological function of the hind limbs was evaluated for seven days after reperfusion and recorded using a motor deficit index (MDI). The spinal cord was then harvested for histopathological examination and evaluation of oxidative stress and inflammation. The profound hypotension group demonstrated a significantly higher MDI 48 h post-reperfusion and lower number of normal motor neurons than the other groups (p < 0.001). The levels of tissue malondialdehyde and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were also significantly increased in the profound hypotension group compared with other groups. Profound hypotension before aortic clamping can aggravate neurologic outcomes after aortic surgery by exacerbating neurologic injury and reducing the number of normal motor neurons.

Role of Endoluminal Techniques in the Management of Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection

In recent guidelines of international societies, the most frequent indication for treatment after chronic type B aortic dissection (cTBAD) is aneurysmal dilatation. Endovascular repair is recommended in patients with moderate to high surgical risk or with contraindications to open repair. During the last decade, many advances have been made in the field of endovascular techniques and devices. The aim of this article is to address the current status of endoluminal techniques for the management of cTBAD including standard thoracic endovascular repair, new devices, fenestrated and branched abdominal aortic devices and false lumen occlusion techniques.

Highly integrated workflows for exploring cardiovascular conditions: Exemplars of precision medicine in Alzheimer's disease and aortic dissection

For precision medicine to be implemented through the lens of in silico technology, it is imperative that biophysical research workflows offer insight into treatments that are specific to a particular illness and to a particular subject. The boundaries of precision medicine can be extended using multiscale, biophysics-centred workflows that consider the fundamental underpinnings of the constituents of cells and tissues and their dynamic environments. Utilising numerical techniques that can capture the broad spectrum of biological flows within complex, deformable and permeable organs and tissues is of paramount importance when considering the core prerequisites of any state-of-the-art precision medicine pipeline. In this work, a succinct breakdown of two precision medicine pipelines developed within two Virtual Physiological Human (VPH) projects are given. The first workflow is targeted on the trajectory of Alzheimer's Disease, and caters for novel hypothesis testing through a multicompartmental poroelastic model which is integrated with a high throughput imaging workflow and subject-specific blood flow variability model. The second workflow gives rise to the patient specific exploration of Aortic Dissections via a multi-scale and compliant model, harnessing imaging, computational fluid-dynamics (CFD) and dynamic boundary conditions. Results relating to the first workflow include some core outputs of the multiporoelastic modelling framework, and the representation of peri-arterial swelling and peri-venous drainage solution fields. The latter solution fields were statistically analysed for a cohort of thirty-five subjects (stratified with respect to disease status, gender and activity level). The second workflow allowed for a better understanding of complex aortic dissection cases utilising both a rigid-wall model informed by minimal and clinically common datasets as well as a moving-wall model informed by rich datasets.

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.

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of therapy for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Dynamic aortic morphologic changes, untreated dissected aorta, and persistent false lumen perfusion have significant consequences for reintervention after TEVAR for TBAD. However, few reports contrast differences in secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR for TBAD or describe their influence on mortality. This analysis examined incidence, timing, and types of SAI after TEVAR for acute and chronic TBAD and determined their impact on survival.

METHODS

All TEVAR procedures for acute and chronic TBAD (2005-2016) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with staged (<30 days) or concomitant ascending aortic arch repair or replacement were excluded. Acuity was defined by symptom onset (0-30 days, acute; >30 days, chronic). SAI procedures were grouped into open (intended treatment zone or remote aortic site), major endovascular (TEVAR extension or endograft implanted at noncontiguous site), and minor endovascular (side branch or false lumen embolization) categories. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to identify SAI predictors.

RESULTS

TEVAR for TBAD was performed in 258 patients (acute, 49% [n = 128]; chronic, 51% [n = 130]). Mean follow-up was 17 ± 22 months with an overall SAI rate of 27% (n = 70; acute, 22% [28]; chronic, 32% [42]; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.9; P = .07]. Median time to SAI was significantly less after acute than after chronic dissection (0.7 [0-12] vs 7 [0-91] months; P < .001); however, freedom from SAI was not different (1-year: acute, 67% ± 4%, vs chronic, 68% ± 5%; 3-year: acute, 65% ± 7%, vs chronic, 52% ± 8%; P = .7). Types of SAI were similar (acute vs chronic: open, 61% vs 55% [P = .6]; major endovascular, 36% vs 38% [P = .8]; minor endovascular, 21% vs 21% [P = 1]). The open conversion rate (either partial or total endograft explantation: acute, 10% [13/128]; chronic, 15% [20/130]; P = .2) and incidence of retrograde dissection (acute, 6% [7/128]; chronic, 4% [5/130]; P = .5) were similar. There was no difference in survival for SAI patients (5-year: acute + SAI, 55% ± 9%, vs acute without SAI, 67% ± 8% [P = .3]; 5-year: chronic + SAI, 72% ± 6%, vs chronic without SAI, 72% ± 7% [P = .7]). Factors associated with SAI included younger age, acute dissection with larger maximal aortic diameter at presentation, Marfan syndrome, and use of arch vessel adjunctive procedures with the index TEVAR. Indication for the index TEVAR (aneurysm, malperfusion, rupture, and pain or hypertension) or remote preoperative history of proximal arch procedure was not predictive of SAI.

CONCLUSIONS

SAI after TEVAR for TBAD is common. Acute TBAD has a higher proportion of early SAI; however, chronic TBAD appears to have ongoing risk of remediation after the first postoperative year. SAI types are similar between groups, and the occurrence of aorta-related reintervention does not affect survival. Patients' features and anatomy predict need for SAI. These data should be taken into consideration for selection of patients, device design, and surveillance strategies after TEVAR for TBAD.

Simplified hybrid repair with true lumen recycling for retrograde renovisceral perfusion in a complex chronic aortic dissection

A 59-year-old man was referred with complicated chronic type B aortic dissection. Despite the false lumen's being dominant in terms of caliber and limb perfusion, visceral arteries originated in a 9-mm true lumen. A staged approach was performed: open aortobi-iliac bypass with preservation of both lumens to the infrarenal aorta, with reinforcement of the aorta and anastomosis with Dacron (wrap technique); exclusion of the dissection by endografting all of the false lumen with three successive thoracic endoprostheses; and maintenance of true lumen perfusion using two periscopes with self-expanding nitinol stents. The patient remains asymptomatic after 1 year of follow-up.

Frozen elephant trunk and arch endografts for chronic thoracoabdominal aortic dissections

Chronic aortic dissecting aneurysms (TAAD) presenting after acute Stanford type A or B dissection includes both arch and/or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). Approximately 60% of patients who survive surgical treatment of acute type A aortic dissections will require another aortic procedure. Similarly, more than 70% of patients with chronic type B aortic dissections will experience false lumen dilation at 5-year follow-up, often requiring intervention. Open or hybrid aortic repairs of complex TAAD involving the arch and the TAAA are very demanding procedures for both patients and clinicians. Open surgery remains the first line therapy in fit patients. Recent development of branched arch devices has offered an alternative option for high-risk patients. Technical challenges associated with the endovascular management of these complex aneurysms include proximal sealing zone often located in the aortic arch or the ascending aorta, narrow true lumen working space, and aortic branch perfusion by either the true or false lumen, or both. Recent studies have reported encouraging results with endovascular treatment of these complex dissecting aneurysms, especially following open ascending aortic repair. The aim of this review was to describe the available strategies for arch repair in the setting of a chronic TAAD and to determine the subset of patients that can benefit from of a totally endovascular approach.

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.

Unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection: A 16-year single-center report

Background

Unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair mean additional stents implantation beyond the preoperative planning to achieve operation success. This study aimed to reveal the prevalence and consequences of unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection and explore the reasons, risk factors and solutions for unplanned stents.

Methods

Retrospectively analysis consecutive patients diagnosed as type B aortic dissection with initial tear originating distal from the left subclavian artery and underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair from September 1998 to June 2014 in our center.

Results

Under the criteria, this study enrolled 322 patients, with 83 (25.8%) patients in unplanned group. The incidence rate of unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection in each year demonstrates as a bimodal curve. The curve showed that, 2003 and, 2004 was the first and highest peak and 2007 was the second peak. There was no difference in five-year survival rate between planned and unplanned patients (log-rank test, p = 0.994). The unplanned group had higher hospitalization expenses (142,699.08 ± 78,446.75 yuan vs. 175,238.58 ± 34,838.01 yuan; p = 0.019), longer operation time (104.50 ± 93.24 min vs. 179.08 ± 142.47 min; p < 0.001) and hospitalization time (17.07 ± 16.62 d vs. 24.00 ± 15.34 d; p = 0.001). The reasons for unplanned stents were type Ia endoleak (46 patients, 55.4%), bird beak (25 patients, 30.1%), and inappropriate shaping of stent (9 patients, 10.8%). Asymptomatic aortic dissection patients had higher incidence of unplanned stents. Short proximal neck length (2.66 ± 0.59 mm vs. 2.50 ± 0.51 mm; p = 0.016), short stent coverage length (154.62 ± 41.12 mm vs. 133.60 ± 44.33 mm; p = 0.002), and large distal stent oversize (75.44±10.77% vs. 82.68±15.80%; p <0.001) were risk factors for unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

Conclusion

There are some special risk factors and reasons for unplanned stents in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection. Knowing these can we reduce the utilization of unplanned stents with appropriate methods.

How should we manage type B aortic dissections?

Dissection of the descending aorta is a serious and potentially lethal event. Treatment options consist of medical therapy, open surgical replacement of the affected aorta and thoracic endovascular repair. In acute cases, medical treatment is started initially. When complicated, endovascular repair is generally considered as first choice treatment, except for connective tissue disorders where open surgery remains the standard. In stable, uncomplicated patients with risk factors for future aortic growth pre-emptive endovascular repair should be considered in the sub-acute phase of the dissection. The treatment strategy in chronic dissections is somewhat debated. Long-term results and aortic remodeling of endovascular repair are disappointing and open surgery remains the standard.