Outcome comparison between thoracic endovascular and open repair for type B aortic dissection: A population-based longitudinal study

Prescription pattern and effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs in patients with aortic dissection who underwent surgery

Background: Surgical patients with aortic dissection often require multiple antihypertensive drugs to control blood pressure. However, the prescription pattern and effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs for these patients are unclear. We aimed to investigate the prescription pattern and effectiveness of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in surgical patients with aortic dissection. Methods: Newly diagnosed aortic dissection patients who underwent surgery, aged >20 years, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017 were identified. Patients with missing data, in-hospital mortality, aortic aneurysms, or congenital connective tissue disorders, such as Marfan syndrome, were excluded. Prescription patterns of antihypertensive drugs were identified from medical records of outpatient visits within 90 days after discharge. Antihypertensive drugs were classified into four classes: 1) β-blockers, 2) calcium channel blockers (CCBs), 3) renin-angiotensin system, and 4) other antihypertensive drugs. Patients were classified according to the number of classes of antihypertensive drugs as follows: 1) class 0, no exposure to antihypertensive drugs; 2) class 1, antihypertensive drugs of the same class; 3) class 2, antihypertensive drugs of two classes; 4) class 3, antihypertensive drugs of three classes; or 5) class 4, antihypertensive drugs of four classes. The primary composite outcomes included rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection, death due to aortic dissection, and all-cause mortality. Results: Most patients were prescribed two (28.87%) or three classes (28.01%) of antihypertensive drugs. In class 1, β-blockers were most commonly used (8.79%), followed by CCBs (5.95%). In class 2, β-blockers+CCB (10.66%) and CCB+RAS (5.18%) were the most common drug combinations. In class 3, β-blockers + CCB+RAS (14.84%) was the most prescribed combination. Class 0 had a significantly higher hazard of the composite outcome (HR, 2.1; CI, 1.46-3.02; p < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR, 2.34; CI, 1.56-3.51; p < 0.001) than class 1. There were no significant differences in hazards for rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection among classes. Conclusion: Among operated patients with type A aortic dissection, no specific type of antihypertensive drug was associated with a better outcome, whereas among those with type B aortic dissection, the use of β-blockers and CCBs was related to a significantly lower risk of the composite outcome.

Trends in Cardiovascular Surgery in South Korea: A Nationwide Cohort Study from 2010 to 2019

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate mortality and its associated factors in cardiovascular surgery-associated intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in South Korea from 2010 to 2019.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING

Data from the National Health Insurance Service database in South Korea were used in this study.

PARTICIPANTS

All adult patients admitted to the ICU associated with cardiovascular surgery in South Korea between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019 were analyzed.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 62,794 ICU admissions associated with cardiovascular surgery were included in the analysis (median value of age: 65 years; 58.0% men). This included patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) only (n = 10,704), valve-only surgery (n = 35,812), CABG + valve surgery (n = 3,230), aortic procedures (n = 7,968), and others (n = 5,080). The number of cardiovascular surgeries associated with ICU admissions was 4,409 in 2010, which gradually increased to 10,366 in 2019. The aortic procedure group had the highest 1-year mortality rate after cardiovascular surgery (15.7%), followed by the CABG + valve (13.2%), others (11.5%), CABG-only (9.5%), and valve-only (8.7%) groups. Invasive life support procedures during the ICU stay and hospital admission through the emergency room were potential risk factors for 1-year mortality after cardiovascular surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiovascular surgery-associated intensive care admissions gradually increased from 2010 to 2019 in South Korea. Among these patients, the highest 1-year mortality rate was observed in the aortic procedures group, followed by the CABG + valve, others, CABG-only, and valve-only groups.

Endovascular versus open surgical repair for complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Type B aortic dissection can lead to serious and life-threatening complications such as aortic rupture, stroke, renal failure, and paraplegia, all of which require intervention. Traditionally, these complications have been treated with open surgery. Recently however, endovascular repair has been proposed as an alternative.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of thoracic aortic endovascular repair versus open surgical repair for treatment of complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection (CBAD).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers, to 2 August 2021. We searched references of relevant articles retrieved through the electronic search for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) assessing the effects of thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection (CBAD). Outcomes of interest were mortality (all-cause, dissection-related), neurological sequelae (stroke, spinal cord ischaemia/paresis-paralysis, vertebral insufficiency), morphological outcomes (false lumen thrombosis, progression of dissection, aortic diameters), acute renal failure, ischaemic symptoms (visceral ischaemia, limb ischaemia), re-intervention, and health-related quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts identified by the searches to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. From title and abstract screening, we did not identify any trials (RCTs or CCTs) that required full-text assessment. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any trials (RCTs or CCTs) that met the inclusion criteria for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to lack of RCTs or CCTs investigating the effectiveness and safety of TEVAR compared to OSR for patients with complicated CBAD, we are unable to provide any evidence to inform decision-making on the optimal intervention for these patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs addressing this objective are necessary. However, conducting such studies will be challenging for this life-threatening disease.

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.

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.

[Hybrid aortic repair in patients with type III aortic dissection and concomitant proximal aortic lesion]

OBJECTIVE

To report our own experience of hybrid treatment using FET technique in patients with type A aortic dissection and concomitant lesion of aortic arch and ascending aorta.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 90 (28,3%) FET procedures for the period from January 2010 to August 2019. Type B aortic dissection was diagnosed in 19 (45,2%) patients. Type B aortic dissection combined with aortic arch aneurysm occurred in 11 (58%) cases, ascending aorta aneurysm - 15 (79%) cases. Patients underwent total arch and ascending aorta replacement via median sternotomy (upper partial J-shaped sternotomy in 3 cases). Valve-sparing interventions were performed in 58% of cases (aortic root repair - 6 (32%) patients, David procedure - 5 (26%) cases). Intraoperative features, early postoperative morbidity and in-hospital mortality were retrospectively analyzed. In long-term period, distal aortic remodeling, survival rate and incidence of redo interventions were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean CPB time was 166±27 min, aortic cross-clamping time - 93±23 min, duration of circulatory arrest - 43±11 min. Neurological complications and paraplegia were absent. In-hospital mortality was absent. Reversible acute renal failure without need for hemodialysis developed in 2 cases (11%). Two patients underwent repeated intervention (TEVAR) due to dSINE and negative aortic remodeling. Annual survival rate was 100%. Freedom from redo aortic surgery was 89,5%.

CONCLUSION

FET surgery is an adequate alternative treatment for type B aortic dissection combined with lesion of aortic arch and ascending aorta. This approach ensures a one-stage repair in patients with contraindications to TEVAR. Unlike thoracotomy, FET procedure is valuable for simultaneous correction of cardiac and proximal aortic lesion, stabilizing the distal segments of dissected aorta. This is obvious advantage of this technique.

Landing Zone Remodelling after Endovascular Repair of Dissected Descending Aorta

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine geometric changes in the proximal and distal aortic landing zones after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for acute descending aortic dissection.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiological data. Included are patients who underwent TEVAR for acute descending aortic dissection between 2004 and 2018. Analysed are the proximal and distal landing zones' initial geometries and their change at follow up. Median follow up time was 2.3 (first quartile 0.9, third quartile 4.5) years.

RESULTS

One hundred and one patients were included (93 type B and 8 non-A non-B dissections, aged 65 (57, 74) years old, and 29% female). Dissection extended down to the abdominal aorta in 69% patients. The proximal landing zone was non-dissected in 92 patients. The diameters of non-dissected proximal landing zones increased by 3 (-1, 5; p < .001) mm at follow up. The distal landing zone was dissected in 84% of patients. The diameters of dissected distal landing zones had increased at follow up by 7 (3, 12) mm and 4 (1, 10; both p < .001) mm measured in true lumen and total aorta, respectively, observed one year after TEVAR. Stent grafts reached their nominal diameter at follow up in 22% and 17% of proximal and distal landing zones, respectively. There were seven proximal and 10 distal stent graft induced new entries at follow up. Aortic re-intervention was necessary in 23 patients entailing 19 TEVAR extensions and four open aortic repairs.

CONCLUSION

The distal landing zone in patients undergoing TEVAR for descending aortic dissection is frequently dissected and is associated with the risk of d-SINE at follow up and the need for re-interventions after TEVAR - factors that emphasise the importance of long term follow up.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair versus open chest surgical repair for patients with type B aortic dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: This meta-analysis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TEVAR versus OCSR for TBAD patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library to identify studies compared the effectiveness of TEVAR and OCSR in TBAD patients from the inception up to July 2019. The summary results were calculated using a random-effects model.Results: The electronic search identified 1,894 studies, and 18 studies with 9,664 TBAD patients were included. We noted patients received TEVAR were associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality, acute renal failure, respiratory failure, and bleeding as compared with OCSR, whereas no significant differences between groups for the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, paraplegia, mesenteric ischaemia/infarction, reinterventions, sepsis, and spinal cord ischaemia.Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis study suggested that TEVAR resulted in more short-term survival benefits. Moreover, the reduced risk of acute renal failure, respiratory failure and bleeding was detected in TEVAR group. The treatment effects of TEVAR versus OCSR on specific complications should be further verified by a study with high-level of evidence.Key messageComprehensive collected studies investigated the treatment effectiveness between TEVAR and OCSR for TBAD patientsTEVAR resulted in more survival benefits, in addition to lower risk of acute renal failure, respiratory failure and bleedingThe results of stratified analyses according to patients' characteristics were conducted.

Midterm prognosis of type B aortic dissection with and without dissecting aneurysm of descending thoracic aorta after endovascular repair

Few studies support guidelines for the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to address type B aortic dissection (TBAD) coexisting with descending thoracic aortic dissection and aneurysm (dTADA). This cohort study investigated midterm outcomes of TBAD with dTADA (dTADA group, n = 31) and without dTADA (non-dTADA group, n = 98) after TEVAR. Compared with the non-dTADA group, the dTADA group exhibited higher incidences of type Ia endoleak (29.0% vs. 3.1%, P < 0.001) and reintervention (16.1% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.045). The completely thrombosed rate of the thoracic false lumen was significantly lower in the dTADA group than in the non-dTADA group (45.2% vs. 80.6%, P < 0.001). Although the two groups exhibited similar mortality rates, TBAD coexisting with no regressive dTADA after TEVAR was an independent predictor of mortality (HR: 15.52, 95% CI: 1.614-149.233, P = 0.018). Moreover, the change percentages of false lumen retraction and true lumen re-expansion in the dTADA group were significantly inferior to those of the non-dTADA group at levels of 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th thoracic vertebra throughout follow-up. In conclusion, in the presence of preexisting dTADA, the failure of the dTADA to regress after TEVAR is associated with lower survival and a higher risk of reintervention.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of acute type B thoracic aortic dissection, open, or endovascular repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative and mortality outcomes of endovascular aortic repair against open repair in acute type B thoracic aortic dissection.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing open vs endovascular repair in management of acute type B aortic dissection. Databases where evaluated and assessed to July 2017. The 95% confidence intervals were analyzed from the extracted data using relevant statistical methods.

RESULTS

Overall, 18,193 patients were found in a combination of nine studies. Patients undergoing open repair were younger (mean, 61.3 ± 9.3 years vs 66.6 ± 12.5 years; P < .00001). Postoperative stroke and paraplegia were similar in both groups (P = .71 and P = .81 respectively); however, the rate of all neurologic complications were more common in the traditional open repair group (6.9% vs 4.8%; P = .006). The all-cause operative and 1-year death was reported as higher in the open repair group (18.6% vs 7.4% [P < .0001] and 24.3% vs 14.3% [P < .0001], respectively); however, at 5 years this rate is almost similar between both groups (46.7% vs 49.7%; P = .21). At 1 year, the rate of reintervention was reported to be higher in endovascular repair group of patients (15.4% vs 5.5%; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

This study concludes that endovascular repair, in the setting of acute type B thoracic aortic dissection, provides an early surgical benefit; however, this finding has not yet been supported by long-term data. There seems to be a benefit with respect to all-neurologic events in favor of endovascular repair. Long-term comparative data and studies are required to give a better understanding of these two approaches.

A review of endovascular treatment of thoracic aorta disease

INTRODUCTION

The development of thoracic endovascular aortic repair has altered the approach and reduced the risk of treating the majority of descending thoracic aortic conditions. Primarily developed for the exclusion of thoracic aortic aneurysms, it is now used in place of open repair surgery for most descending thoracic aortic diseases, and has also been used to treat aortic arch diseases in selected cases.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted of Medline and Embase databases from January 2007 to February 2017, using the key words 'aortic disease', 'thoracic aorta' and 'endovascular repair'; 205 articles were identified, of which 25 studies were selected for review based on their relevance.

FINDINGS

The key findings of the indications, techniques, outcomes, complications and comparisons with open surgical repair were extracted from the published studies and are summarised in this review. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is the preferred choice of intervention for patients with descending thoracic aortic disease. With time, it has improved to be safer and has the potential to expand aortic treatment choices in future.

Laser Fenestration for Treatment of a Complicated Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection

We report a case of a complex chronic type B aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair and laser fenestration of the false septum to preserve flow to branch vessels originating from both the true and false lumen. Dissections complicated by thoracoabdominal aneurysmal degeneration with critical organs being perfused by branches arising from both true and false lumens are rare and leave limited options for repair. Despite advancements in endovascular techniques, fenestration remains one of the only means of preserving flow to both the true and false lumens and thus was necessary in the management of our patient. This novel procedure allows complex aortic dissections to be addressed endovascularly, which increases the flexibility and management of this challenging problem that previously required an open repair with significant morbidity.

[Endovascular versus conventional vascular surgery - old-fashioned thinking? Part 1: interventions on the aorta]

Endovascular therapy has widely replaced conventional open vascular surgical reconstruction. For this reason both techniques were widely considered to be competing approaches. Evidence-based data from randomized prospective trials, meta-analyses and clinical registries, however, demonstrated that both techniques should be used to complement each other. It became increasingly more evident that the use of either procedure depends on the underlying disease and the anatomical conditions, whereby a combination of both (hybrid approach) may be the preferred option in certain situations. This review focuses on the treatment of complicated acute type B aortic dissection, descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms as well as asymptomatic and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.