Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 May;69(5):1367-1378.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.080. Epub 2018 Dec 13.

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection

Kristina A Giles et al. J Vasc Surg. 2019 May.

Abstract

Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of therapy for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Dynamic aortic morphologic changes, untreated dissected aorta, and persistent false lumen perfusion have significant consequences for reintervention after TEVAR for TBAD. However, few reports contrast differences in secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR for TBAD or describe their influence on mortality. This analysis examined incidence, timing, and types of SAI after TEVAR for acute and chronic TBAD and determined their impact on survival.

Methods: All TEVAR procedures for acute and chronic TBAD (2005-2016) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with staged (<30 days) or concomitant ascending aortic arch repair or replacement were excluded. Acuity was defined by symptom onset (0-30 days, acute; >30 days, chronic). SAI procedures were grouped into open (intended treatment zone or remote aortic site), major endovascular (TEVAR extension or endograft implanted at noncontiguous site), and minor endovascular (side branch or false lumen embolization) categories. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to identify SAI predictors.

Results: TEVAR for TBAD was performed in 258 patients (acute, 49% [n = 128]; chronic, 51% [n = 130]). Mean follow-up was 17 ± 22 months with an overall SAI rate of 27% (n = 70; acute, 22% [28]; chronic, 32% [42]; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.9; P = .07]. Median time to SAI was significantly less after acute than after chronic dissection (0.7 [0-12] vs 7 [0-91] months; P < .001); however, freedom from SAI was not different (1-year: acute, 67% ± 4%, vs chronic, 68% ± 5%; 3-year: acute, 65% ± 7%, vs chronic, 52% ± 8%; P = .7). Types of SAI were similar (acute vs chronic: open, 61% vs 55% [P = .6]; major endovascular, 36% vs 38% [P = .8]; minor endovascular, 21% vs 21% [P = 1]). The open conversion rate (either partial or total endograft explantation: acute, 10% [13/128]; chronic, 15% [20/130]; P = .2) and incidence of retrograde dissection (acute, 6% [7/128]; chronic, 4% [5/130]; P = .5) were similar. There was no difference in survival for SAI patients (5-year: acute + SAI, 55% ± 9%, vs acute without SAI, 67% ± 8% [P = .3]; 5-year: chronic + SAI, 72% ± 6%, vs chronic without SAI, 72% ± 7% [P = .7]). Factors associated with SAI included younger age, acute dissection with larger maximal aortic diameter at presentation, Marfan syndrome, and use of arch vessel adjunctive procedures with the index TEVAR. Indication for the index TEVAR (aneurysm, malperfusion, rupture, and pain or hypertension) or remote preoperative history of proximal arch procedure was not predictive of SAI.

Conclusions: SAI after TEVAR for TBAD is common. Acute TBAD has a higher proportion of early SAI; however, chronic TBAD appears to have ongoing risk of remediation after the first postoperative year. SAI types are similar between groups, and the occurrence of aorta-related reintervention does not affect survival. Patients' features and anatomy predict need for SAI. These data should be taken into consideration for selection of patients, device design, and surveillance strategies after TEVAR for TBAD.

Keywords: Aortic dissection; Reinterventions; Secondary interventions; TEVAR; Type B aortic dissection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Freedom from Secondary Aorta Related Re-intervention after TEVAR for Acute and Chronic Type B Dissection
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Survival with or without Secondary Aorta Related Re-intervention after TEVAR for Type B Dissection
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Survival Impact of Secondary Aorta Related Re-intervention after TEVAR for Acute and Chronic Type B Dissection
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Survival Impact of Open Conversion and/or Repair of Retrograde Type A Dissection after TEVAR for Acute and Chronic Type B Dissection
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Survival Impact of Secondary Aorta Related Re-intervention Excluding Early (<30-day) Mortality Events after TEVAR for Acute and Chronic Type B Dissection

Comment in

  • Discussion.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] J Vasc Surg. 2019 May;69(5):1378. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.085. Epub 2018 Dec 13. J Vasc Surg. 2019. PMID: 30553727 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fattori R, Montgomery D, Lovato L, Kische S, Di Eusanio M, Ince H, et al. Survival after endovascular therapy in patients with type b aortic dissection: A report from the international registry of acute aortic dissection (irad). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013;6:876–882 - PubMed
    1. Hanna JM, Andersen ND, Ganapathi AM, McCann RL, Hughes GC. Five-year results for endovascular repair of acute complicated type b aortic dissection. J Vasc Surg 2014;59:96–106 - PubMed
    1. Dake MD, Kato N, Mitchell RS, Semba CP, Razavi MK, Shimono T, et al. Endovascular stent-graft placement for the treatment of acute aortic dissection. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1546–1552 - PubMed
    1. Fattori R, Cao P, De Rango P, Czerny M, Evangelista A, Nienaber C, et al. Interdisciplinary expert consensus document on management of type b aortic dissection. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:1661–1678 - PubMed
    1. Lombardi JV, Cambria RP, Nienaber CA, Chiesa R, Teebken O, Lee A, et al. Prospective multicenter clinical trial (stable) on the endovascular treatment of complicated type b aortic dissection using a composite device design. J Vasc Surg 2012;55:629–640 e622 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms