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.

Population risk profile analysis of acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (unTBAD) comprises the estimated majority of type B aortic dissection (TBAD), presenting without any of the complications associated with complicated TBAD (coTBAD). Although first-line treatment for coTBAD is thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), and despite the fact that TEVAR has proven its safety and effectiveness in the treatment of unTBAD, unTBAD is still being predominantly managed conservatively with medical therapy, with a small proportion of patients being offered TEVAR.

AIMS

The main scope of this review is to highlight the evidence in the literature of the demographic characteristics and associated co-morbidities of unTBAD patients undergoing TEVAR in order to produce a risk stratification system to achieve favourable outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Multiple demographic characteristics and associated co-morbidities of unTBAD patients affecting TEVAR outcomes were identified, assessed, and investigated, including age, gender, race, genetics, medical conditions, such as hypertension and diabetes, and lifestyle factors such as smoking. Most factors were associated with increased risks of mortality and morbidity, while others, such as race, were identified as being protective against those when it comes to TEVAR.

CONCLUSION

Despite the favourable results yielded by TEVAR in unTBAD, there remains a grey area concerning its management. Thus, it is important to incorporate the demographics and co-morbidities of unTBAD patients' when into clinical judgement when assessing indications for TEVAR intervention to ensure optimum results can be achieved.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Experimental evaluation of the patient-specific haemodynamics of an aortic dissection model using particle image velocimetry

Aortic Dissection (AD) is a complex pathology that affects the aorta. Diagnosis, management and treatment remain a challenge as it is a highly patient-specific pathology and there is still a limited understanding of the fluid-mechanics phenomena underlying clinical outcomes. Although in vitro models can allow the accurate study of AD flow fields in physical phantoms, they are currently scarce and almost exclusively rely on over simplifying assumptions. In this work, we present the first experimental study of a patient-specific case of AD. An anatomically correct phantom was produced and combined with a state-of-the-art in vitro platform, informed by clinical data, employed to accurately reproduce personalised conditions. The complex AD haemodynamics reproduced by the platform was characterised by flow rate and pressure acquisitions as well as Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) derived velocity fields. Clinically relevant haemodynamic indices, that can be correlated with AD prognosis - such as velocity, shear rate, turbulent kinetic energy distributions - were extracted in two regions of interest in the aortic domain. The acquired data highlighted the complex nature of the flow (e.g. recirculation regions, low shear rate in the false lumen) and was in very good agreement with the available clinical data and the CFD results of a study conducted alongside, demonstrating the accuracy of the findings. These results demonstrate that the described platform constitutes a powerful, unique tool to reproduce in vitro personalised haemodynamic conditions, which can be used to support the evaluation of surgical procedures, medical devices testing and to validate state-of-the-art numerical models.

Mid- and long-term outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in acute and subacute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) has been managed conservatively with medical therapy to control the heart rate and blood pressure to limit disease progression, in addition to radiological follow-up. However, several trials and observational studies have investigated the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in un-TBAD and suggested that TEVAR provides a survival benefit over medical therapy. Outcomes of TEVAR have also been linked with the timing of intervention.

AIMS

The scope of this review is to collate and summarize all the evidence in the literature on the mid- and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in un-TBAD, confirming its superiority. We also aimed to investigate the relationship between the timing of TEVAR intervention and results.

METHODS

We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE to collate and summarize all research evidence on the mid- and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in un-TBAD, as well as its relationship with intervention timing.

RESULTS

TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective tool in un-TBAD, offering superior mid- and long-term outcomes including all-cause and aorta-related mortality, aortic-specific adverse events, aortic remodeling, and need for reintervention. Additionally, performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of dissection seems to yield optimal results.

CONCLUSION

The evidence demonstrating a survival advantage in favor TEVAR over medical therapy in un-TBAD means that with further research, particular trials and observational studies, TEVAR could become the gold-standard treatment option for un-TBAD patients.

Criteria for endovascular intervention in type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) remains controversial. There is a lack of consensus over whether pre-emptive TEVAR should be carried out in patients with un-TBAD at risk of progression to complicated TBAD. We present a review of current evidence and seek to suggest criteria where endovascular intervention in un-TBAD may prove beneficial relative to pharmacotherapy alone.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched using terms including: type B aortic dissection, risk factors, medical therapy, TEVAR, false lumen (FL) expansion, and mortality. Papers were selected based on title and abstract.

RESULTS

Optimal medical therapy remains the mainstay treatment for patients with un-TBAD, however, patients with un-TBAD present with varying degrees of disease progression risk. Factors such as age, aortic morphology, history of connective tissue disorders, FL thrombosis, and aortic branch involvement may potentiate progression from un-TBAD to complicated TBAD. Short- and long-term outcomes associated with TEVAR for TBAD remain promising.

CONCLUSION

Pre-emptive TEVAR may be beneficial in patients with un-TBAD presenting with the above factors, however, further prospective research into the optimal timing for TEVAR in un-TBAD is required.

What is the optimal timing for thoracic endovascular aortic repair in uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection?

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated Stanford Type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) is characterized by a tear in the aorta distal to the left subclavian artery without ascending aorta and arch involvement. Optimized cardiovascular control (blood pressure and heart rate) is the current gold standard treatment according to current international guidelines. However, emerging evidence indicates that thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is both safe and effective in the treatment of un-TBAD with improved long-term survival outcomes in combination with optimal medical therapy (OMT) relative to OMT alone. However, the optimal timeframe for intervention is not entirely clarified.

AIMS

This review critically addresses current state-of-the-art comparing TEVAR with OMT and corresponding clinical outcomes for un-TBAD based on timing of intervention.

METHODS

We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PUBMED and Scopus to collate all research evidence on timing of TEVAR in uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection.

RESULTS

TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for un-TBAD in combination with OMT through comparable survival outcomes, improved aortic remodeling, and relatively low periprocedural added risks. Though the timing of intervention remains controversial, it is becoming clear that performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of un-TBAD yields better outcomes compared to earlier and delayed (>90 days) intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is required into both short- and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in addition to its optimal therapeutic window for un-TBAD. With stronger evidence, TEVAR is likely to be adopted as the gold-standard intervention for un-TBAD with definitive timeframe guidelines.

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

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) has been selectively used for uncomplicated acute type B Aortic Dissection (TBAD); however, not all cases will benefit from TEVAR. A search for high risk clinical and radiographic predictors for complications is ongoing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify predictors of major adverse events during follow-up of uncomplicated TBAD, in order to identify who might benefit from elective TEVAR.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

16 studies were included in a qualitative synthesis and 10 in the meta-analysis. Several risk factors associated to major adverse events have been described, including (1) aortic diameter ≥40 mm, (2) greater false lumen diameter (>22mm), (3) patent false lumen, (4) primary entry tear > 10mm, and (5) greater number of false lumen vessels origin. Quantitative synthesis identified an aortic diameter ≥40 mm significantly associated with major adverse events (HR=3.56; p<0.00001). Reporting of false lumen status, aortic diameters and growth, and demographic data was not always congruent with the most recent recommendations by Society for Vascular Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons, published in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute and subacute patients with uncomplicated TBAD presenting with an aortic diameter ≥ 40 mm and solely treated with BMT have an increased hazard of developing major adverse events (HR), making them potential candidates for TEVAR. Remaining risk factors analysed have weaker evidence.