Surgical Outcomes And Postoperative Descending Aorta Morphologic Remodeling After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair For Acute And Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection

False lumen patency status and outcomes after endovascular repair of uncomplicated chronic type B dissection

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) remains a controversial treatment for uncomplicated chronic type B aortic dissection (cTBAD). This study was performed to investigate the postoperative outcomes of TEVAR, such as survival and reintervention, and the risk factors for prognoses.

METHODS

In total, 41 patients with uncomplicated cTBAD who underwent TEVAR from 2014 to 2021 were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: those with false lumen complete thrombosis (FLCT) and false lumen partial thrombosis (FLPT) based on computed tomography angiography (CTA) images. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to estimate survival and freedom from reintervention. Binary logistic analysis was performed to estimate risk factors for partial thrombosis.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 31 (1-78) months, five deaths and six reinterventions had occurred at 5 years. By 1 week, thoracic FLCT had occurred in 23 (56.1%) patients and thoracic FLPT had occurred in 18 (43.9%). The rate of freedom from reintervention was significantly lower in the FLCT than in the FLPT group (p = 0.04). The 5-year survival rate of the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.14). Risk factors for thoracic FLPT were the distance between the re-entry site and the graft (p = 0.02) and the proximal oversizing ratio (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR is an effective and safe treatment for uncomplicated cTBAD and has a low mortality rate. Thoracic FLCT is associated with less reintervention, but overall survival is not impacted by this difference. Patients treated with TEVAR without certain risk factors can have a good prognosis.

A stable and quantitative method for dimensionality reduction of aortic centerline

Aortic dissection (AD) is a fatal aortic disease with high mortality. Assessing the morphology of the aorta is critical for diagnostic and surgical decisions. Aortic centerline projection methods have been used to evaluate the morphology of the aorta. However, there is a big difference between the current model of primary plane projection (PPP) and the actual shape of individuals, which is not conducive to morphological statistical analysis. Finding a method to compress the three-dimensional information of the aorta into two dimensions is helpful to clinical decision-making. In this paper, the evaluation parameters, including contour length (CL), enclosure area, and the sum of absolute residuals (SAR), were introduced to objectively evaluate the optimal projection plane rather than artificial subjective judgment. Our results showed that the optimal projection plane could be objectively characterized by the three evaluation parameters. As the morphological criterion, SAR is optimal among the three parameters. Compared to the optimal projection plane selected by traditional PPP, our method has better AD discrimination in the analysis of aortic tortuosity, and is conducive to the clinical operation of AD. Thus, it has application prospects for the preprocessing techniques for the geometric morphology analysis of AD.

Thoracic endovascular repair of chronic type B aortic dissection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

At present, the optimal management strategy for chronic type B aortic dissection (CTBAD) remains unknown, as equipoise remains regarding medical management versus endovascular treatment versus open surgery. However, the results over recent years of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in CTBAD appear promising. The aim of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive analysis of the available data reporting outcomes and survival rates for TEVAR in CTBAD.

METHODS

Electronic searches of six databases were performed from inception to April 2021. All studies reporting outcomes, specifically 30-day mortality rates, for endovascular repair of CTBAD were identified. Relevant data were extracted, and a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions or means was performed to aggregate the data. Survival data were pooled using data derived from original Kaplan-Meier curves, which allows reconstruction of individual patient data.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies with 2,641 patients were identified. Early (<30 days) all-cause and aortic-related mortality rates were low at 1.6% and 0.5%, respectively. Incidence of retrograde type A dissection in the post-operative period was only 1.4%. There were also low rates of cerebrovascular accidents and spinal cord injury (1.1% and 0.9%, respectively). Late follow-up all-cause mortality was 8.0%, however, late aortic-related mortality was only 2.4%. Reintervention rates were 10.1% for endovascular and 6.7% for surgical reintervention. Pooled rates of overall survival at 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year were 91.5%, 84.7%, 77.7% and 56.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant heterogeneity in the available evidence and absence of consensus reporting standards are important considerations and concern when interpreting the data. Evaluation of the evidence suggests that TEVAR for CTBAD is a safe procedure with low rates of complications. However, the optimal treatment strategy for CTBAD remains debatable and requires further research. Evidence from high-quality registries and clinical trials are required to address these challenges.

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.

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.