Incidence, Predictors, and Implications of Secondary Aortic Intervention Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Dissection

Abstract

Background: Secondary aortic intervention (SAI) following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is not uncommon. However, a satisfactory management system has not been established for these patients. We aimed to report our single-center experience with SAI after prior TEVAR for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).

Methods: From January 2010 to May 2017, 860 eligible patients with TBAD underwent TEVAR. One hundred seven (12.4%) patients required SAI, either endovascularly (n=76) or surgically (n=31). The main indications for SAI were entry flow (n=58 [54.2%]), aneurysm expansion of the proximal or remote aorta (n=26 [24.3%]), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n=11 [10.3%]), distal stent-graft-induced new entry tear (n=6 [5.6%]), and stent migration (n=4 [3.7%]). The Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to determine the degree of freedom from SAI and the prognosis. Cox proportional hazards were used to screen for risk factors for SAI and poor prognosis.

Results: The overall 30-day mortality rate after SAI was 4.7% (n=5): endovascular (n=2 [2.6%]) vs open surgery (n=3 [9.7%]; p=0.145). The cumulative survival rates with or without SAI were 86.3%±3.6% vs 95.7%±0.8% at 3 years and 82.0%±4.2% vs 92.2%±1.1% at 5 years, respectively (log-rank p<0.001). Although no significant difference in survival was observed, the incidence of SAI was significantly greater in patients who underwent TEVAR during the chronic phase (acute [11.6%] vs subacute [9.6%] vs chronic [27.8]; p<0.001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that prior TEVAR in the chronic phase (hazard ratio [HR]=1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03-2.90; p=0.039), maximum aortic diameter (HR=1.05, 95% CI=1.04-1.07; p<0.001), and arch involvement (HR=1.48, 95% CI=1.01-2.18; p=0.048) were predictors of the incidence of SAI. In addition, the maximum aortic diameter was demonstrated to be the only risk factor for prognosis after adjusting for confounding factors.

Conclusions: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for chronic TBAD patients should be reconsidered. Open surgery is preferable for those with proximal progression, whereas endovascular treatment is more suitable for distal lesions. Close surveillance and timely reintervention after TEVAR, whether via endovascular techniques or open surgery, are necessary to prevent devastating complications.

Clinical impact: The management of patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is challenging. We summarized our single-center experience regarding secondary aortic intervention after TEVAR for TBAD. We found that TEVAR for chronic TBAD patients should be carefully evaulated, and open surgery is recommended for those with proximal progession, while endovascular treatment is more preferable for distal lesions.

Keywords: secondary aortic intervention; thoracic endovascular aortic repair; type B aortic dissection.