Chronic Type B Dissection, better with endoprosthesis than with medical treatment

Original title: The results of stent graft versus medication therapy for chronic type B dissection Reference: Xin Jia et al. J Vasc Surg 2013;57:406-14

In many institutions patients with Chronic Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection is most often treated medically, and the thoracic endovascular aortic repair implant TEVAR or the surgical procedure are reserved for those who evolve with complications (persistent pain, expansion of false lumen, visceral or peripheral ischemia). 

Even though these complications may not present, the prognosis for these patients continues to be around 30% mortality at 2 years. This prospective study included 303 consecutive patients with chronic type B aortic dissection that received, following medical criteria, optimal medical therapy (OMT) (95 patients) or thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR) (208 patients). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The median time between dissection and endoprosthesis was 23 days. 

No deaths occurred during index hospitalization in the two groups. The TEVAR group 2 patients (0,9%) required emergency surgery for retrograde type A dissection, 6 patients (2,9%) had vascular complications, 2 patients (0,9%) presented neurological compromise and 2 patients (0,9%) periprocedural infarction. No patients in the OMT group presented events in 30 days.

Conclusion 

This multicenter, prospective and not randomized study, showed lower mortality with TEVAR in treating chronic type B aortic dissection vs. OMT. However, global mortality showed no differences.

Editorial comment

Follow up was lost in more than 20% of patients in both groups but especially in the OMT group (as expected). This makes it difficult to interpret results at long term, precisely when benefits of precocious intervention should be seen. Beyond this limitation, this study shows a very acceptable complications rate at 30 days with the intervention, which raises questions about the efficiency of the traditional management of these patients.

SOLACI.ORG

More articles by this author

A New Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Paradigm? CREST-2 Trial Unified Results

Severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis continues to be controversial seeing the optimization of intensive medical therapy (IMT) and the availability lower periprocedural risk revascularization techniques....

Impact of Baseline Systolic Blood Pressure on Blood Pressure Changes Following Renal Denervation

Renal denervation (RDN) is a guideline-recommended therapy to reduce blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension, although uncertainties remain regarding which factors best predict...

Hypertriglyceridemia as Key Factor to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Development and Rupture: Genetic and Experimental Evidence

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a deadly vascular disease with no effective drug treatment, and risk of rupture reaching up to 80%. Even though...

Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Kidney Disease: Outcomes of Different Stroke Prevention Strategies

Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 1 in every 4 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This population carries a high burden of comorbidities and...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

COILSEAL: Use of Coils in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Useful for Complication Management?

The use of coils as vascular closing tool has been steadily expanding beyond its traditional role in neuroradiology into coronary territory, where it remains...

Treatment of In-Stent Restenosis in Small Vessels with Paclitaxel-Coated Balloons

Coronary artery disease (CAD) in smaller epicardial vessels occurs in 30% to 67% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and poses particular technical challenges....

Contemporary Challenges in Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Updated Approach to Device Embolization

Even though percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is generally safe, device embolization – with 0 to 1.5% global incidence – is still a...