Endovascular Therapy for Nonischemic vs Ischemic Complicated Acute Type B Aortic Dissection

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endovascular Therapy for Nonischemic vs Ischemic Complicated Acute Type B Aortic Dissection

AU - Eleshra, Ahmed

AU - Kölbel, Tilo

AU - Panuccio, Giuseppe

AU - Rohlffs, Fiona

AU - Debus, E Sebastian

AU - Tsilimparis, Nikolaos

PY - 2020/2

Y1 - 2020/2

N2 - Purpose: To report a single-center experience with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for complicated acute type B aortic dissection (cATBAD) comparing patients with vs without end-organ ischemia. Materials and Methods: Between November 2010 and December 2017, 64 patients (mean age 64.8±12.5 years; 49 men) underwent TEVAR for cATBAD. Patients were grouped into 2 cohorts: nonischemic (39, 61%) patients with unrelenting pain, early progressive aortic dilatation, uncontrolled hypertension, or rupture, and ischemic (25, 39%) patients with visceral, renal, lower extremity, or spinal cord hypoperfusion. Results: Mean time from diagnosis to treatment was 7.5 days (range 1-32) in the nonischemic group vs 2.3 days (range 1-14) days in the ischemic group (p=0.007). Fourteen (56%) of 25 ischemic cATBAD patients had stents implanted in the renovascular branch vessels, while 4 (16%) patients had stents implanted in the iliac arteries. When branch vessel cannulation failed, fenestrations were made in the intimal flap to improve perfusion of the involved branch (n=5). In the nonischemic group, 3 arteries were stented owing to atherosclerotic stenosis. Technical success was achieved in 62 (97%) of 64 patients; despite stenting, 2 patients had low renal artery perfusion on final angiography. There were no statistically significant differences in early or late outcomes between the nonischemic vs ischemic cATBAD patients. Six (9%) patients died within 30 days: 2 (5%) in the nonischemic group vs 4 (16%) in the ischemic group. Major complications (1 stroke, 2 cases of paraplegia, 1 retrograde type A dissection, and 1 case of bowel ischemia) occurred only in the nonischemic group. The mean follow-up was 28 months. Late endoleaks were observed in 3 (8%) nonischemic patients and 1 (4%) ischemic patient. Reinterventions were required in 7 (18%) nonischemic patients and 4 (16%) ischemic patients. Conclusion: TEVAR is an effective and safe method of treating cATBAD. Early intervention in ischemic cATBAD may have played a significant role in the lack of significant difference between ischemic and nonischemic cATBAD outcomes. Direct visceral reperfusion through branch vessel stenting during TEVAR may be crucial in achieving good outcomes in ischemic cATBAD.

AB - Purpose: To report a single-center experience with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for complicated acute type B aortic dissection (cATBAD) comparing patients with vs without end-organ ischemia. Materials and Methods: Between November 2010 and December 2017, 64 patients (mean age 64.8±12.5 years; 49 men) underwent TEVAR for cATBAD. Patients were grouped into 2 cohorts: nonischemic (39, 61%) patients with unrelenting pain, early progressive aortic dilatation, uncontrolled hypertension, or rupture, and ischemic (25, 39%) patients with visceral, renal, lower extremity, or spinal cord hypoperfusion. Results: Mean time from diagnosis to treatment was 7.5 days (range 1-32) in the nonischemic group vs 2.3 days (range 1-14) days in the ischemic group (p=0.007). Fourteen (56%) of 25 ischemic cATBAD patients had stents implanted in the renovascular branch vessels, while 4 (16%) patients had stents implanted in the iliac arteries. When branch vessel cannulation failed, fenestrations were made in the intimal flap to improve perfusion of the involved branch (n=5). In the nonischemic group, 3 arteries were stented owing to atherosclerotic stenosis. Technical success was achieved in 62 (97%) of 64 patients; despite stenting, 2 patients had low renal artery perfusion on final angiography. There were no statistically significant differences in early or late outcomes between the nonischemic vs ischemic cATBAD patients. Six (9%) patients died within 30 days: 2 (5%) in the nonischemic group vs 4 (16%) in the ischemic group. Major complications (1 stroke, 2 cases of paraplegia, 1 retrograde type A dissection, and 1 case of bowel ischemia) occurred only in the nonischemic group. The mean follow-up was 28 months. Late endoleaks were observed in 3 (8%) nonischemic patients and 1 (4%) ischemic patient. Reinterventions were required in 7 (18%) nonischemic patients and 4 (16%) ischemic patients. Conclusion: TEVAR is an effective and safe method of treating cATBAD. Early intervention in ischemic cATBAD may have played a significant role in the lack of significant difference between ischemic and nonischemic cATBAD outcomes. Direct visceral reperfusion through branch vessel stenting during TEVAR may be crucial in achieving good outcomes in ischemic cATBAD.

KW - Acute Disease

KW - Aged

KW - Aneurysm, Dissecting/complications

KW - Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/complications

KW - Blood Vessel Prosthesis

KW - Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects

KW - Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Ischemia/diagnostic imaging

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Postoperative Complications/etiology

KW - Regional Blood Flow

KW - Retrospective Studies

KW - Risk Factors

KW - Stents

KW - Time Factors

KW - Treatment Outcome

U2 - 10.1177/1526602819888672

DO - 10.1177/1526602819888672

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 31797707

VL - 27

SP - 145

EP - 152

JO - J ENDOVASC THER

JF - J ENDOVASC THER

SN - 1526-6028

IS - 1

ER -