Endovascular repair of acute uncomplicated aortic type B dissection promotes aortic remodelling: 1 year results of the ADSORB trial

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.

Acute or Subacute, the Optimal Timing for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To evaluate the optimal timing (acute or subacute) of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated B aortic dissection (uTBAD) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Method

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken across three major databases (EMBASE/Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Library) and was assessed until November 2021 to identify studies reporting the outcomes of TEVAR utilized to treat patients with uTBAD. The continuous variables were compared between the two groups using t-test and the categorical variables were compared using the χ2-test. A meta-analysis was used to produce pooled odds ratios for early and follow-up outcomes. The random effects models were applied. A statistical analysis was performed using R software v.4.1.

Result

A comprehensive literature search found 490 citations published within the predetermined time span of the analysis. Three studies including 1,193 patients (acute group 718, subacute group 475) were finally included for downstream meta-analysis. An acute uTBAD group presented with higher rates both in 30-day complications (20.5 vs. 13.7%; p = 0.014) and mortality (4.6 vs. 1.3%; p = 0.004) than subacute group. The respiratory complications were significantly higher in the acute group than in the subacute group (10.8 vs. 5.0%; p = 0.015). The procedure success rate (90.8 vs. 93.6%; p = 0.329), the follow-up mortality (7.7 vs. 7.6%; p = 1) and dissection-related late mortality (3.9 vs. 5.3%; p = 0.603) showed no significant difference.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis suggested that despite significantly higher 30-day complications and 30-day mortality in the acute uTBAD group, there was no significant difference in the follow-up mortality between the two groups.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42021247609.

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.

The impact of dissection membrane motility on mid-term aortic remodelling after thoracic endovascular repair

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess preoperative dissection flap motility and to evaluate its impact on the aortic remodelling and the development of distal stent-induced new entry after thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR)/frozen elephant trunk (FET).

METHODS

Patients with primary or residual type B dissections were included in a retrospective study with transoesophageal echocardiography analysis of the preoperative dissection flap motility assessed by the true lumen (TL) strain. Three-dimensional computing tomography centreline reconstructions before TEVAR/FET and during the follow-up were conducted to measure aortic remodelling: false lumen thrombosis, TL expansion and aortic diameters at 10 and 20 cm downstream the left subclavian artery, at the coeliac trunk and in the infrarenal aorta. All continuous variables are reported as median with first and third quartiles.

RESULTS

Fifty-six consecutive patients were treated with TEVAR (n = 45) or FET (n = 11) in the acute (n = 16), subacute (n = 16) and chronic (n = 24) dissection phase. At a median follow-up of 6 (3-12) months, they showed a favourable TL expansion in the descending aorta, significantly higher in the acute [+9 mm (5-12); P < 0.001] and subacute groups [+5 mm (3-8); P = 0.039] than in the chronic group [+2 mm (0-5)]. The dissection flap motility parameter TL strain was superior in the acute (P = 0.006) and subacute (P = 0.035) groups in comparison to the chronic group. The motile flap [TL strain >22.5% (median)] was associated with a higher TL expansion rate in the thoracic aorta (P = 0.009) and a comparable distal stent-induced new entry incidence (overall: 16%) in comparison to the immobile flap (P = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

The intraoperative assessment and the inclusion of the dissection flap motility parameters in the decision-making during TEVAR/FET may refine the distal endograft sizing for an improved remodelling of the TL.

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Aortic Syndromes: Dissection, Penetrating Aortic Ulcer, and Intramural Hematoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute aortic syndromes, including aortic dissection, intramural hematoma, and penetrating aortic ulcer, are a group of highly morbid, related pathologies that are defined by compromised aortic wall integrity. The purpose of this review is to summarize current management strategies for acute aortic syndromes.

RECENT FINDINGS

All acute aortic syndromes have potential for high morbidity and mortality and must be quickly identified and managed with the appropriate algorithm to prevent suboptimal outcomes. Recent trials suggest that TEVAR is increasingly useful in stabilizing pathology of the descending thoracic aorta but when possible should be applied in a delayed fashion and with limited coverage to minimize neurologic complications. Treatment for acute aortic syndrome is frequently dictated by the anatomic location and extent of the wall compromise as well as patient comorbidities. Therapy is often individualized and often includes some combination of medical, procedural, and surgical intervention.

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.

Systemic immune-inflammation index predicted the clinical outcome in patients with type-B aortic dissection undergoing thoracic endovascular repair

BACKGROUND

The systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) has been reported to have prognostic ability in various cardiovascular diseases; however, it has not been studied in type-B aortic dissection (TBAD). We aimed to explore the relation of SII with short-term and long-term outcomes in TBAD patients undergoing thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database from 2010 to 2017. The patients were divided into two groups (high SII and low SII) as per the optimal cut-off value determined using the receiver operating characteristic curve. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed to analyse the relationship between the SII and the short-term and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 805 TBAD patients who underwent TEVAR were enrolled. Twenty-six (3.2%) patients died during hospitalisation. At the end of a median follow-up duration of 48.80 mon, 70 (9.8%) patients had died. The patients were divided into the high-SII group [n = 333 (41.4%%)] and the low-SII group [n = 472 (58.6%)] as per the optimal cut-off value of 1,062. Multivariable logistic analyses showed that a high-SII score was independently associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in-hospital (odd ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-2.47; p = .01). In addition, multivariable Cox analyses showed that a high-SII score could be an independent indicator for follow-up adverse events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.14-2.56, p = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic immune-inflammation index is associated with both in-hospital and long-term outcomes in patients with TBAD undergoing TEVAR. Therefore, SII may serve as valuable tool for risk stratification before intervention.

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.

Incidental Finding of an Asymptomatic Aortic Dissection in a Patient With Catheterization Failure

Aortic dissection (AD) is an injury to the innermost layer of the aorta, leading to the formation of a false lumen. AD usually presents with tearing chest pain radiating to the back and is a medical emergency. Other common symptoms include abdominal pain, diaphoresis, loss of consciousness, shortness of breath, stroke-like symptoms, or leg pain. Here, we present a rare case of an incidental finding of asymptomatic AD on computed tomography angiography performed after cardiac catheterization failure. The patient had a history of aortic aneurysm, hypertension, and heart failure. Appropriate imaging should be performed to rule out the possibility of AD in patients with risk factors and cardiac catheterization failure.

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.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection: What is the optimal time window for intervention?

BACKGROUND

Uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) is still managed conservatively with optimal medical therapy (OMT) despite evidence in favour of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for un-TBAD. OMT aims to regulate heart rate and blood pressure and patients require long-term follow-up to evaluate the extent of dissection, however, many un-TBAD patients are lost to follow-up. Several trials and observational studies evaluated the use of TEVAR in combination with OMT in un-TBAD and proved the safety, effectiveness, and comparability of TEVAR relative to OMT alone. What remains in question is the optimal time window to intervene with TEVAR. This was recently addressed in a fascinating review by Jubouri et al. AIMS: This commentary aims to discuss the recent review by Jubouri et al. which further proved that TEVAR is safe and effective in un-TABD and investigated the optimal timing of TEVAR in un-TBAD.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We carried out a literature search using multiple electronic databases including PUBMED and Scopus in order to collate research evidence on intervention timeframe and outcomes of TEVAR in un-TBAD.

RESULTS

Performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of dissection (15-90 days since symptom onset) seems to be associated with less periprocedural complications compared to the acute phase, however, late outcomes (>30 days post-TEVAR) are comparable between the two groups and are superior to the chronic phase.

DISCUSSION

The introduction of TEVAR in un-TBAD presents a paradigm shift in the management of un-TBAD and a potential move towards becoming the gold-standard treatment option for un-TBAD. Intervening with TEVAR within the first 90 days since symptom onset (acute and subacute un-TBAD) gives favourable outcomes relative to intervention in the chronic phase of dissection (>90 days since symptom onset), this is due to the dissecting septum becoming less compliant over time.

CONCLUSION

TEVAR is a safe and effective treatment modality for un-TBAD with a survival benefit compared to OMT alone. Offering TEVAR during the subacute phase of dissection yields optimal results which are comparable to the acute phase but superior to the chronic phase.

Endovascular repair of acute complicated type B aortic dissection-systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term survival and reintervention

Background

Thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is considered the first-line therapy in the repair of acute complicated type B aortic dissection (AC-BAD). Given the difficulty of designing randomized trials in this surgical cohort, long-term outcome data is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a complete aggregation of reported long-term survival and freedom from reintervention of AC-BAD patients based on the existing literature.

Methods

Three databases were searched from date of database inception to January 2021. The relevant references were identified and baseline cohort characteristics, survival and freedom from reintervention were extracted. The primary endpoints were survival and freedom from reintervention, whilst secondary endpoints were post-operative outcomes such as cord ischemia and endoleak. Kaplan-Meier curves were digitized and aggregated as per established procedure.

Results

A total of 2,812 references were identified in the literature search for review, with 46 selected for inclusion. A total of 2,565 patients were identified, of which 1,920 (75%) were male. The mean age of the cohort was 59.8±5.8. Actuarial survival at 2, 4, 6 and 10 years was 87.5%, 83.2%, 78.5% and 69.7%, respectively. Freedom from all secondary reintervention at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 years was 74.7%, 69.1%, 65.7%, 63.9% and 60.9%, respectively. When accounting for study quality, actuarial survival at 2, 4, 6 and 8 years was 85.4%, 79.1%, 69.8% and 63.1%, respectively. Freedom from all secondary reintervention at 2, 4, 6 and 8 years was 73.2%, 67.6%, 63.7% (maintained), respectively.

Conclusions

TEVAR is associated with promising long-term survival extended to 10 years, though rates of freedom from reintervention remain an ongoing point for improvement. Randomized controlled trials comparing endovascular with open repair in the setting of acute, complicated type B aortic dissection are needed.

Endovascular repair of acute type B thoracic aortic dissection

Approximately one-third of patients with acute Stanford type B or DeBakey type III aortic dissection (TBAD) will develop complications, including persistent symptoms, malperfusion, enlarging aneurysms and impending rupture. In these cases, TBAD becomes a surgical emergency that requires endovascular intervention to complement the medical therapy. The immediate goal of endovascular therapy is to reestablish flow to the true lumen, stabilize the aneurysm and prevent rupture. Long-term goals are the remodeling of the descending thoracic aorta and the prevention of further surgeries in the thoracoabdominal aorta. In this report, we describe our step-by-step endovascular approach to TBAD repair.

Acute aortic syndromes: a review of what we know and future considerations

Acute aortic syndromes represent a spectrum of life-threatening aortic pathologies. Prompt diagnosis and proper management of these syndromes are important in reducing overall mortality and morbidity, which remains high. Acute aortic dissections represent most of these aortic wall pathologies, but intramural haematomas and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers have been increasingly diagnosed. Type A dissections require prompt surgical treatment, with endovascular options on the horizon. Type B dissections can be complicated or uncomplicated, and treatment is determined based on this designation. Complicated Type B dissections require prompt repair with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) becoming the preferred method. Uncomplicated Type B dissections require medical management, but early TEVAR in the subacute setting is becoming more prominent. Proper surveillance for an uncomplicated Type B dissection is crucial in detecting aortic degeneration and need for intervention. Intramural haematomas and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers are managed similarly to aortic dissections, but more research is needed to determine the proper management algorithms. Multi-disciplinary aortic programmes have been shown to improve patient outcomes and are necessary in optimizing long-term follow-up.

Aortic-related Readmission after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection Patients: A Single-center Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of and risk factors for aortic-related readmission after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

METHODS

Data from TBAD patients who underwent TEVAR from 2009-2018 at a Chinese tertiary center were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Enrolled patients were categorized into two groups according to whether aortic-related readmission occurred during follow-up, which was defined as hospitalization at least once after the initial procedure due to events that were related to or caused by aortic dissection or the initial procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 1 288 TBAD patients were enrolled, and 99 patients experienced aortic-related readmissions (7.7%), among whom chronic patients had the highest readmission rate (9.8%). The yearly proportion of readmission during the first year after initial procedure revealed a decreasing trend with a -9.7% annual percentage change. Seventy-one patients underwent reintervention (71.7%). Distal aneurysmal degeneration (43.7%) and distal stent graft-induced new entries (32.4%) were two major causes for reintervention. Fourteen patients in the reintervention subgroup underwent a second reintervention (19.7%). In-hospital mortality was 1.0% during the readmission and 14.3% during the second readmission. The overall survival was comparable between two groups (p=.93).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlighted the importance of surveillance after initial procedure for TBAD patients with potential risk factors for aortic-related readmission, and the predisposition of patients with reintervention to multiple readmissions deserves attention.

Acute Aortic Syndromes

Acute aortic syndromes, classified into aortic dissection, intramural hematoma, and penetrating aortic ulcer, are associated with high early mortality for which early diagnosis and management are crucial to optimize outcomes. Patients often present with nonspecific clinical symptoms and signs; therefore, it is important for providers to maintain a high index of suspicion for acute aortic syndromes. Electrocardiogram-gated computed tomographic angiography of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis is currently the most practical imaging modality for diagnosis and identification of complications. Evolution in surgical techniques and the development of aortic endografts have improved patient outcomes, but randomized trials are still needed.

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.

Outflow Through Aortic Side Branches Drives False Lumen Patency in Type B Aortic Dissection

Objective: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) aims to induce false lumen (FL) thrombosis by sealing intimal tears between the true (TL) and the FL, and blocking the inflow into the FL. Incomplete thrombosis of the FL is correlated with poor clinical outcome. We hypothesize that the number of major and minor branches arising from the FL affects FL patency and may negatively influence TEVAR induced FL thrombosis.

Methods: Computed tomography (CT)-scans from 89 patients diagnosed with TBAD [best medical treatment (BMT) n = 52, TEVAR n = 37] from two high-volume vascular surgery centers were analyzed retrospectively. Analysis included evaluation of the FL patency status, the number, location and size of intimal tears, and the presence of minor and major side branches originating from the FL. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to evaluate obtained parameters as predictors for FL thrombosis status.

Results: In univariate analysis, the strongest correlation for FL patency was found for the number of major (R = 0.79) and minor (R = 0.86) side branches originating from the FL. When applying a multiple linear regression model, the number of major (normalized beta 0.37; P < 0.001) and minor (normalized beta 0.41; P < 0.01) side branches arising from the FL were valid predictors for the axial length of the patent and non-patent FL, and additionally determined the length of the patent FL at 12-month follow-up in patients that underwent TEVAR.

Conclusions: Our data suggest that the number of minor side branches that originate from the FL in TBAD is an important determinant of FL patency, to a greater degree than previously assumed.

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.

Successful surgical repair of traumatic aortic dissection utilizing the Najuta stent graft in a patient with pre-existing situs inversus and anomalous neck vessels

We report the case of a 39-year-old man who underwent surgical repair for traumatic Stanford type B acute aortic dissection. He was involved in a traffic accident, resulting in multiple rib fractures and a sternum fracture. On investigation, he was also found to have anatomical anomalies, namely, situs inversus and abnormality in the aortic arch and neck vessels. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair was performed as it is a less invasive procedure, thus recommended in such cases. A fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair using the Najuta stent graft was found to be effective in this case where the anomalous anatomy was pre-existing.

Risk factors for incomplete thrombosis in false lumen in sub-acute type B aortic dissection post-TEVAR

There is scarce information about the risk factors for incomplete false lumen thrombosis (FLT) among type B aortic dissection (AD) patients, particularly in the sub-acute phase following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We enrolled consecutive sub-acute type B AD patients at Xinqiao Hospital (Chongqing, China) from May 2010 to December 2019. Patients with severe heart failure, cancer, and myocardial infarction were excluded. The postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) data were extracted from the most recent follow-up aortic CTA. Multivariate logistic regressions were applied to identify the association between FLT and clinical or imaging factors. Fifty-five subjects were enrolled in our study. Twelve participants showed complete FLT, and 2 of these died during the follow-up, while 8 patients died in incomplete FLT group. In the multivariate analysis, maximum abdominal aorta diameter (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.016-1.417 p = 0.032) and the number of branches arising from the false lumen (FL) (OR 15.062, 95% 1.681-134.982 p = 0.015) were significantly associated with incomplete FLT. The C-statistics was 0.873 (95% CI 0.773-0.972) for the model. The FL diameter (p < 0.001) was significantly shorter following TEVAR, while the true lumen diameter (p < 0.001) and maximum abdominal aorta diameter (p = 0.011) were larger after the aortic repair. There were 21.8% of sub-acute type B AD patients presented complete FLT post-TEVAR. Maximum abdominal aorta diameter and the number of branches arising from the FL were independent risk factors for incomplete FLT. The true lumen diameter, maximum abdominal aorta diameter, and FL diameter changed notably following TEVAR.

Endovascular repair of the aortic arch: State of the art

BACKGROUND

Open total arch replacement remains the gold standard treatment for aneurysms and dissections involving the aortic arch. However, high-risk surgical candidates may benefit from endovascular techniques to reduce the risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity, especially neurologic complications. Numerous endografts are available for investigational use in the aortic arch as part of investigational device exemption (IDE) programs. Some devices are fenestrated or scalloped, while others are branched, ranging from single branch to triple branch stent-grafts. Furthermore, chimney techniques and in situ fenestration may be utilized in bailout or emergent situations.

RESULTS

Initial results describing outcomes of complete endovascular repair of the aortic arch are encouraging, with current data estimating that technical success ranges from 84.2% to 100%. Moreover, operative mortality may be as high as 13.2%, while neurologic complications also remain common, with stroke rates being as high as 20% and spinal cord ischemia being as high as 3.1%. However, more data are necessary to determine the comparative treatment effect of endovascular stent-grafting of the aortic arch, compared with conventional open and hybrid repairs. Longitudinal follow-up is also lacking, which will determine the long-term durability of endografts in the aortic arch. Nevertheless, endovascular repair represents an important opportunity for improving outcomes in patients with complex and potentially devastating pathologies of the aortic arch.

Results of a prospective follow-up study after type A aortic dissection repair: a high rate of distal aneurysmal evolution and reinterventions

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the anatomical evolution of residual aortic dissection after type A repair and factors associated with poor prognosis at a high-volume aortic centre.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2019, all type A aortic dissections were included for prospective follow-up. Patients without follow-up computed tomography (CT) scan available for radiological analysis and patients without residual aortic dissection were excluded from this study. The primary end point was a composite end point defined as dissection-related events including aneurysmal evolution (increased diameter > 5 mm/year), aortic reintervention for malperfusion syndrome, aortic diameter >55 mm, rapid aortic growth >10 mm/year or aortic rupture and death. The secondary end points were risk factors for dissection-related events and reintervention analysis. All immediate and last postoperative CT scans were analysed.

RESULTS

Among 104 patients, after a mean follow-up of 20.4 months (8-41), the risk of dissection-related events was 46.1% (48/104) and the risk of distal reintervention was 17.3% (18/104). Marfan syndrome (P < 0.01), aortic bicuspid valve (P = 0.038), innominate artery debranching (P = 0.025), short aortic cross-clamp time (P = 0.011), initial aortic diameter >40 mm (P < 0.01) and absence of resection of the primary entry tear (P = 0.015) were associated with an increased risk of dissection-related events or reintervention during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Residual aortic dissection is a serious disease requiring close follow-up at an expert centre. This study shows higher reintervention and aneurysmal development rates than currently published. To improve long-term outcomes, the early demographic and anatomic poor prognostic factors identified may be used for more aggressive treatment at an early phase.

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.

Is TEVAR really needed for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection?

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has quickly become the mainstay of treatment for acute aortic dissection, in particular cases of acute complicated Stanford Type B dissection (co-TBAD). Necessarily, TEVAR carries with it the risk of postoperative complications, including stroke and renal failure. As a result, the management of patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD), which is generally accepted as being less severe, is safely managed via optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. However, despite OMT, patients with un-TBAD are at substantial risk of severe disease progression requiring delayed intervention. The cost-benefit ratio associated with TEVAR for un-TBAD is therefore of key interest. Howard and colleagues produced a fascinating systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the clinical outcomes of TEVAR for complicated and uncomplicated TBAD. Their data suggest that there is no significant difference in in-hospital mortality or 5-year survival between TEVAR for un-TBAD and co-TBAD, although the 30-day mortality rate appeared to be higher in the co-TBAD cohort. Patients with co-TBAD appeared to also be at a higher risk of postoperative stroke and TEVAR endoleak, while un-TBAD patients were at a higher risk of postoperative renal failure. Further prospective research into these relationships is recommended to fully elucidate the comparative efficacies of TEVAR for un-TBAD and co-TBAD.

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.

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.

National trends in repair for type B aortic dissection

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) first gained in popularity for repair of type B aortic dissections (TBADs) in the early 2000's. We aimed to describe patients undergoing open repair, TEVAR, and no repair and analyze factors associated with repair within 14 days of presentation in the contemporary era.

Methods

We used the MarketScan database to find patients with TBAD between 2014 and 2017. To assess factors associated with early repair, univariable, and multivariable log‐binomial regression were used.

Results

There were 2613 patients admitted with TBAD between 2014 and 2017 across the United States, of whom 38.4% underwent repair within 14 days of admission (25.3% open repair and 13.1% TEVAR). The incidence of repair within 14 days decreased over the study period (43% of the study cohort in 2014 to 26.4% in 2017) primarily due to a decrease in open repairs from 30.8% of patients in 2014 to 12.5% in 2017. In multivariable analysis, older age, Middle Atlantic location, diabetes mellitus, insulin use, antiplatelet use, and more recent year were associated with lower likelihood of early repair; male sex, peripheral vascular disease, and the presence of extremity ischemia, rupture, shock, and acidosis were associated with higher likelihood of repair.

Conclusions

Overall, repair of TBAD within 14 days of presentation declined from 2014 to 2017, with a steady rate of TEVAR but declining rate of open repairs. Further investigation into provider‐ and hospital‐specific factors as they relate to likelihood of repair is needed.

Predictors of 30-day readmission and resource utilization after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVES

The introduction and expansion of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have revolutionized the treatment of a variety of thoracic aortic diseases. We sought to evaluate the incidence, causes, predictors and costs associated with 30-day readmission after TEVAR in a nationally representative cohort.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing isolated TEVAR were identified in the National Readmissions Database from 2010 to 2014. Hospital costs were estimated by converting individual hospital charge data adjusted to 2014 consumer price indices. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to determine hospital- and patient-level factors associated with readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 24 983 TEVARs were noted during the study period; the average age of the patients was 65 ± 16 years; 40% were women. The most common indication was an intact thoracic aneurysm (43.5%), followed by aortic dissection (30.5%). The average cost of the index admission was $63 644 ± $52 312; the average hospital stay was 11 ± 14 days; the index mortality rate was 6.7%. Readmissions within 30 days occurred in 17.4% of patients. Indications for readmission were varied; the most common aetiologies were cardiac (17.8%), infectious (16.0%) and pulmonary (12.1%). On multivariable analysis, the strongest predictor of readmission was the diagnosis, with a ruptured thoraco-abdominal aneurysm having the highest readmission burden (adjusted odds ratio 2.23, 1.17-4.24; P = 0.015). Notably, hospital volume did not predict index hospital length of stay, costs or 30-day readmissions (all P > 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Annual TEVAR volume was not associated with any of the outcomes assessed. Rather, indication for TEVAR was the strongest predictor for many outcomes. As TEVAR becomes increasingly utilized, a focus on cardiac and vascular diseases may reduce readmissions and improve quality of care.

Dissection length-to-descending thoraco-abdominal aorta length ratio predicts abdominal aortic enlargement after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection involving the abdominal aorta

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to assess the association between the dissection length-to-descending thoraco-abdominal aorta length ratio (LLR) and abdominal aortic enlargement (AAE) (≥20% increase in total abdominal aortic volume) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with type B aortic dissection.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed data from 184 consecutive patients with type B aortic dissection who underwent TEVAR from January 2011 to December 2016 at 4 hospitals as part of the Registry Of type B aortic dissection with Utility of STent graft study. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography angiography images were reviewed to assess the LLR and AAE. Patients were stratified into tertiles according to the pre-TEVAR LLR: 0.7 to <1.0 (n = 61), 1.0 to <1.2 (n = 61) and 1.2 to <1.6 (n = 62). The thoracic and abdominal aorta were divided by the celiac trunk. The cumulative incidence of AAE was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the independent association between the preoperative LLR and the post-TEVAR risk of AAE. The nonlinear relationship between the LLR and the risk of post-TEVAR AAE was fitted by the restricted cubic smoothing spline, and the inflection point on the fitting curve was determined using a piecewise linear regression model.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics, clinical features, preoperative anatomic characteristics and implanted devices were similarly distributed among the pre-TEVAR LLR tertile groups. At 24 months post-TEVAR, the estimated cumulative incidence of AAE significantly differed (P < 0.01) by LLR tertile group: 0.10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00-0.21], 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.78) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.40-0.82), respectively. The pre-TEVAR LLR was an independent predictor of post-TEVAR AAE [hazard ratio (per unit increase) 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04] following a nonlinear relationship with an inflection point at LLR = 1.0.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of post-TEVAR AAE is highest when the length of the dissection is greater than or equal to the length of the descending aorta (LLR ≥ 1.0).

Using Machine Learning to Predict Five-Year Reintervention Risk in Type B Aortic Dissection Patients After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Purpose: Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a high-risk disease, commonly treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). However, for the long-term follow-up, it is associated with a high 5-year reintervention rate for patients after TEVAR. There is no accurate definition of prognostic risk factors for TBAD in medical guidelines, and there is no scientific judgment standard for patients’ quality of life or survival outcome in the next five years in clinical practice. A large amount of medical data features makes prognostic analysis difficult. However, machine learning (ML) permits lots of objective data features to be considered for clinical risk stratification and patient management. We aimed to predict the 5-year prognosis in TBAD after TEVAR by Ml, based on baseline, stent characteristics and computed tomography angiography (CTA) imaging data, and provided a certain degree of scientific basis for prognostic risk score and stratification in medical guidelines. Materials and Methods: Dataset we recorded was obtained from 172 TBAD patients undergoing TEVAR. Totally 40 features were recorded, including 14 baseline, 5 stent characteristics and 21 CTA imaging data. Information gain (IG) was used to select features highly associated with adverse outcome. Then, the Gradient Boost classifier was trained using grid search and stratified 5-fold cross-validation, and Its predictive performance was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC) in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC). Results: Totally 60 patients underwent reintervention during follow-up. Combing 24 features selected by IG, ML model predicted prognosis well in TBAD after TEVAR, with an AUC of 0.816 and a 95% confidence interval of 0.797 to 0.837. Reintervention rate of prediction was slightly higher than the actual (48.2% vs. 34.8%). Conclusion: Machine learning, which combined with baseline, stent characteristics and CTA imaging data for personalized risk computations, effectively predicted reintervention risk in TBAD patients after TEVAR in 5-year follow-up. The model could be used to efficiently assist the clinical management of TBAD patients and prompt high-risk factors.

A multicenter study of emergency endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta: Indications and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular techniques have become an essential tool for the treatment of descending thoracic aortic disease (thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair [TEVAR]). The aim is to analyze the indications and outcomes of emergency TEVAR at national level in relation to elective surgery.

STUDY DESIGN AND SCOPE

A retrospective multicenter registry of patients with descending thoracic aortic disease treated on an emergency basis using endovascular techniques between 2012-2016, in 11 clinical units.

PATIENTS, INCLUSION CRITERIA

1) Ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (RTAA); 2) Blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (TAI); and 3) Complicated acute type B aortic dissections (TBADc).

PRIMARY VARIABLES

Patient mortality, survival and reoperation rate.

SECONDARY VARIABLES

Demographic data, cardiovascular risk factors, specific data by indication, technical resources and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 135 urgent TEVARs were included (111 men, mean age 60.4 ± 16.3 years): 43 ruptured thoracic aortic aneurysms (31.9%), 54 type B dissections (40%) and 32 traumatic aortic injuries (23.7%), and other etiologies 4.4%. The overall mortality rate at 30 days was 18.5%, and proved higher in the RTAA group (27.9%). The mean actuarial survival rate was 67 ± 6% at 5 years. The postoperative stroke rate was 5.2%, and the paraplegia rate was 5.9%. Aortic reoperations proved necessary in 12 patients (9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency descending thoracic aortic diseases can be treated by endovascular techniques with optimal results and low morbidity and mortality - though the figures are slightly higher than in elective cases. This registry provides, for the first time, real information on the daily clinical practice of emergency TEVAR in Spain.

Predictors of Adherence to Anti-Impulse Therapy among Patients Treated for Acute Type-B Aortic Dissections

BACKGROUND

Medical management remains the mainstay of treatment for patients who present with acute Type-B aortic dissections (TBAD). However, it is unclear whether patients maintain adherence to their anti-impulse therapy medication regimen following hospital discharge. This study was designed to evaluate rates and predictors of medication adherence among insured patients treated for acute TBAD.

METHODS

We used the Truven MarketScan database to identify US patients who presented with an acute TBAD between 2008 to 2017. Patients with continuous health insurance (Commercial or Medicare Part C) for at least 12 months after TBAD diagnosis were stratified by whether they underwent open surgical repair (OPEN), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), or only medication management (MED). Prescriptions for anti-impulse therapy medications were captured and adherence was defined by the medication possession ratio as > 80% fill rate over the follow-up period. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to identify predictors for medication adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 6,702 patients were identified that underwent treatment for TBAD (3% TEVAR, 9% OPEN, & 74% MED), whereas 14% received no intervention. The overall mean (±SD) rate of adherence to anti-impulse therapy was 72.6% ( ± 26), and varied based on type of TBAD intervention (73.4% TEVAR, 74.4% OPEN, & 72.4% MED). The majority of patients across all treatment groups were prescribed ≥ 2 agents, with beta-blockers and diuretics being the most common medication classes. The odds of adherence to anti-impulse therapy were significantly lower for patients who were female (OR: 0.93; 95%CI:0.85-0.99; P = 0.03), aged < 45 years (OR: 0.81; 95%CI:0.69-0.96; P < 0.001), nonadherent on preexisting therapy (OR: 0.81; 95%CI: 0.73-0.89; P < 0.001), and when medications were obtained in less than a 90 days supply from retail pharmacies.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly a quarter of patients were nonadherent with anti-impulse therapy prescribed following an acute TBAD, which was more likely among younger female patients not adherent before their event. Adherence was improved among patients who received their medications by mail and when a > 90 days supply was prescribed. These findings may be used by quality improvement initiatives to improve medication adherence following TBAD and help prevent further complications.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair With Additional Distal Bare Stents in Type B Aortic Dissection Does Not Prevent Long-Term Aneurysmal Degeneration

PURPOSE

TEVAR (thoracic endovascular aortic repair) + PETTICOAT (Provisional ExTension to Induce COmplete ATtachment) technique has been selectively employed since 2005 at our institution during endovascular treatment of type B aortic dissection (TBD). The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term (>5 years) clinical results and the evolution of aortic volume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All the patients receiving an endovascular treatment for TBD with the PETTICOAT technique were collected in a prospectively maintained database and follow-up computed tomography scan were retrospectively analyzed. Study endpoints included short- and long-term clinical success (absence of need for reintervention) and any major adverse event. The volumes of thoracic and abdominal aorta at long-term follow-up were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients received a TEVAR + PETTICOAT and were followed up (median follow-up 85 months). Primary 30-day clinical success rate was 82% with an adverse event rate of 31%; 4 type I endoleak and 1 retrograde dissection were recorded. Secondary mid-term clinical success was 96% while the long-term clinical success rate was 79%. Six cases (21%) received either an open repair or an endovascular repair for a significant distal aortic enlargement at follow-up. With regards to volumetric analysis, an increase of overall (thoracic and abdominal) aortic volume was observed in 8 cases mainly related to an increase (mean: +31%) of the abdominal volume that was observed in 11 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PETTICOAT technique does not protect from long-term significant aneurysmal degeneration that may require aortic open or endovascular reinterventions. Aortic growth occurs mainly in the bare-stented aorta and thus, life-long surveillance is advisable in these patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular interventions for Stanford type A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

The standard surgical approach to Stanford type A aortic dissection is open repair. However, up to one in four patients will be declined surgery because of prohibitive risk. Patients who are treated nonoperatively have an unacceptably high mortality. Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta is emerging as an alternative treatment for a select group of patients. The reported rates of technical success, mortality, stroke, and reintervention have varied. The objective of the study was to systematically report outcomes for acute type A dissections repaired using an endovascular approach.

METHODS

The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines. We performed online literature database searches through April 2020. The demographic and procedural characteristics of the individual studies were tabulated. Data on technical success, short-term mortality, stroke, and reintervention were extracted and underwent meta-analysis using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 80 cases of aortic dissection (55 acute and 25 subacute) were included in the final analysis. A wide variation was found in technique and device design across the studies. The outcomes rates were estimated at 17% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-26%) for mortality, 15% (95% CI, 8%-23%) for technical failure, 11% (95% CI, 6%-19%) for stroke and 18% (95% CI, 9%-31%) for reintervention. The mean Downs and Black quality assessment score was 13.9 ± 3.2.

CONCLUSION

The technique for endovascular repair of type A aortic dissection is feasible and reproducible. The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate an acceptable safety profile for inoperable patients who otherwise would have an extremely poor prognosis. Data from clinical trials are required before the technique can be introduced into routine clinical practice.

TEVAR Following FET: Current Outcomes of Rendezvous Procedures in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

 The treatment of extensive thoracic/thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies with arch involvement remains a challenging task in aortic surgery. The introduction of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique offered a link between open surgery and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Despite a decade of experience, data on the complementary use of these techniques are scant. The aim of this study was to evaluate TEVAR following FET in clinical reality.

METHODS

 Between November 2006 and June 2018, 20 patients (9 females; median age of 69 years) underwent endovascular second-stage completion after FET. The clinical outcomes, technical feasibility, and morphological findings were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

 Eleven of the 20 interventions were intended "rendezvous procedures" in a multistage approach; 4 were elective reinterventions, and 5 were emergency complication repairs. The median interval between FET and TEVAR was 231 days (11 days-7.4 years). The technical success rate was 100%. During a median follow-up (FU) period of 58.3 months, the overall survival rate was 95%, with one in-hospital death. Neurological complications occurred in three cases (spinal cord injury: n = 1; stroke: n = 2). Computed tomography angiography showed overall regression in the median diameter of the proximal descending aorta (from 57 to 48.5 mm).

CONCLUSION

 TEVAR as a second-stage intervention after FET is a feasible option, with satisfactory results at medium-term FU. In extensive thoracoabdominal aortic disease without proximal landing zones, the complementary use of both techniques in a multistage approach should be considered.