LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Thoracic endovascular repair for acute complicated type B aortic dissections

Photo from wikipedia

Objective This study retrospectively assessed in‐hospital mortality and long‐term results of emergency thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for patients with life‐threatening acute complicated type B aortic dissection (acTBD). Methods Between… Click to show full abstract

Objective This study retrospectively assessed in‐hospital mortality and long‐term results of emergency thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for patients with life‐threatening acute complicated type B aortic dissection (acTBD). Methods Between March 2001 and December 2016, there were 55 patients (40 male; median age, 52 ± 13 years) with an acTBD who were treated with TEVAR for malperfusion (58%), aortic rupture (18%), or persistent untreatable pain with true lumen reduction or rapid aortic diameter enlargement (24%) as a sign of disease progression. The patients were categorized according to clinical appearance into two groups: group A, malperfusion, pending rupture, or rupture; and group B, persistent ongoing pain, rapid enlargement of aortic diameter, or significant changes in the true to false lumen ratio. Four patients (7%) had undergone previous aortic surgery. Results Technical success (coverage of the primary intimal tear) was achieved in 50 patients (91%). The overall in‐hospital mortality rate was 9% (n = 5), and there was a statistically significant difference in early mortality between group A and group B (7% vs 2%; P < .02). Causes of in‐hospital death were all aorta related, including a rupture during the procedure and on the first postinterventional day in two patients and redissection (ascending aorta, n = 2; descending aorta, n = 1) with a consequent aortic rupture after TEVAR in the remaining three. Permanent neurologic dysfunction occurred in five patients (stroke, n = 2; paraplegia, n = 3). Overall, 19 patients (34%) developed early endoleaks (type IA, n = 5; type IB, n = 11; type II, n = 2; type IB plus type II, n = 1). Therefore, 5 patients needed early (within 30 days) endovascular intervention because of a type IA (n = 2), type IB (n = 3), or type II endoleak (n = 1) and the rapid progression of aortic diameter, persistent signs of ischemia (n = 2), or rupture (n = 1), whereas the remaining 14 patients were treated conservatively and followed up by computed tomography angiography. Seven patients with early endoleaks needed an endovascular intervention (n = 3) or conventional surgery (n = 4) because of aortic progression in the follow‐up period (mean interval after procedure, 92 ± 56 months). The actual survival rates were 87%, 85%, and 75% at 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively, and freedom from aorta‐related death was 87%, 87%, and 77% at 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively. Freedom from reintervention for any cause using a Kaplan‐Meier analysis was 70%, 68%, 68%, and 63% at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively. Conclusions TEVAR of acTBD has been proven to be an excellent treatment modality in this cohort of high‐risk patients, with promising midterm and long‐term results.

Keywords: thoracic endovascular; acute complicated; rupture; complicated type; type; type type

Journal Title: Journal of Vascular Surgery
Year Published: 2019

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.