Predictors of adverse events in uncomplicated type B aortic dissection: a systematic review with meta-analysis

The effect of obesity on the outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Obesity is a well-known predictor for poor postoperative outcomes of vascular surgery. However, the association between obesity and outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the roles of obesity in the outcomes of TEVAR.

Methods

We systematically searched the Web of Science and PubMed databases to obtain articles regarding obesity and TEVAR that were published before July 2023. The odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) was used to assess the effect of obesity on TEVAR outcomes. Body mass index (BMI) was also compared between patients experiencing adverse events after TEVAR and those not experiencing adverse events. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the enrolled studies.

Results

A total of 7,849 patients from 10 studies were included. All enrolled studies were high-quality. Overall, the risk of overall mortality (OR = 1.49, 95% CI [1.02-2.17], p = 0.04) was increased in obese patients receiving TEVAR. However, the associations between obesity and overall complications (OR = 2.41, 95% CI [0.84-6.93], p = 0.10) and specific complications were all insignificant, including stroke (OR = 1.39, 95% CI [0.56-3.45], p = 0.48), spinal ischemia (OR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.64-1.47], p = 0.89), neurological complications (OR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.01-2.37], p = 0.17), endoleaks (OR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.46-2.29], p = 0.96), wound complications (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.28-2.96], p = 0.88), and renal failure (OR = 2.98, 95% CI [0.92-9.69], p = 0.07). In addition, the patients who suffered from postoperative overall complications (p < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (p = 0.006) were found to have a higher BMI. In conclusion, obesity is closely associated with higher risk of mortality after TEVAR. However, TEVAR may still be suitable for obese patients. Physicians should pay more attention to the perioperative management of obese patients.

Endovascular Repair of the Thoracic Aorta Combined with Drug Therapy in Acute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

Objective

This study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) combined with Best Medical Therapy (BMT) in acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

Methods

Using the random method, 90 patients admitted to our hospital between January 2018 and January 2020 with acute uncomplicated TBAD were randomly divided into a control group and a study group, with 45 cases in each of the groups. The effectiveness of BMT combined with TEVAR treatment was compared.

Results

The incidence of recent adverse reactions did not differ significantly between the two groups. Compared to the control group, the 1-year survival rate and 2-year survival rate of patients in the study group were considerably higher. In order to examine the relationship between survival and time, the Kaplan-Meier curve was used. Both groups reached the median survival time after 24 months of follow-up. The expected survival time of the study group was longer than that of the control group. False lumen thrombosis or absence of thrombus was significantly more prevalent in the study group than in the control group.

Conclusion

For patients with acute uncomplicated TBAD, BMT combined with TEVAR can significantly improve the long-term survival rate and increase the expected survival time.

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.