Effects of isoprenaline isomers in man.

A. Dornhorst,A. Herxheimer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(58)91335-7

IF: 202.731

1958-10-04

The Lancet

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Endovascular repair versus best medical treatment for uncomplicated acute type B acute aorta dissection: a meta-analysis

Yunpeng Ma,Yinzun Qi,Qiang Li,Wenjie Zhao,Shuangxiong Zhu,Yu Zhang,Xin Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/aic.2023.133256

Abstract:Introduction: In acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) patients, thoracic endovascular aorta repair (TEVAR) and best medical treatment (BMT) have both been employed for the clinical management of this condition. The relative efficacy of TEVAR and BMT when used to manage cases of acute uncomplicated TBAD, however, remains to be clarified. Aim: To conduct a pooled meta-analysis comparing acute uncomplicated TBAD patient outcomes associated with primary TEVAR or BMT treatment. Material and methods: Relevant articles published up to July 2023 were identified by searching the Web of Science, PubMed, and Wanfang databases. Pooled analyses of endpoints from these studies were then conducted. Results: Six relevant studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 522 and 535 patients who underwent TEVAR and BMT treatment, respectively. No significant differences were observed between these two groups with respect to pooled hospitalization duration, re-intervention rates, early mortality, organ failure incidence, stroke incidence, or the incidence of retrograde type A dissection (p = 0.89, 0.12, 0.09, 0.36, 0.09, and 0.95, respectively). TEVAR, however, was associated with significantly better pooled thrombosed/obliterated false lumen, late mortality, aorta-related mortality, and rupture rates relative to BMT (p = 0.00001, 0.002, 0.0001, and 0.04, respectively). TEVAR was associated with a 7% pooled type I endoleak incidence rate. Endpoints exhibiting significant heterogeneity included hospitalization duration, thrombosed/obliterated false lumen rates, and rupture rates (I 2 = 96%, 73%, and 61%, respectively). Conclusions: While TEVAR and BMT yield similar short-term outcomes for acute uncomplicated TBAD patients, TEVAR may be associated with a better long-term patient prognosis.
Endovascular Repair of the Thoracic Aorta Combined with Drug Therapy in Acute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

Li Wei,Yan Meng,Guofeng Zhang,Hao Qin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3021599

2022-09-22

Disease Markers

Abstract:Objective. This study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) combined with Best Medical Therapy (BMT) in acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Methods. Using the random method, 90 patients admitted to our hospital between January 2018 and January 2020 with acute uncomplicated TBAD were randomly divided into a control group and a study group, with 45 cases in each of the groups. The effectiveness of BMT combined with TEVAR treatment was compared. Results. The incidence of recent adverse reactions did not differ significantly between the two groups. Compared to the control group, the 1-year survival rate and 2-year survival rate of patients in the study group were considerably higher. In order to examine the relationship between survival and time, the Kaplan-Meier curve was used. Both groups reached the median survival time after 24 months of follow-up. The expected survival time of the study group was longer than that of the control group. False lumen thrombosis or absence of thrombus was significantly more prevalent in the study group than in the control group. Conclusion. For patients with acute uncomplicated TBAD, BMT combined with TEVAR can significantly improve the long-term survival rate and increase the expected survival time.

genetics & heredity,pathology,medicine, research & experimental,biotechnology & applied microbiology
[The good medical department].

K. Bech

Abstract:
Bursae and abscess cavities communicating with the hip. Diagnosis using arthrography and CT.

L. Steinbach,R. Schneider,A. Goldman,E. Kazam,C. Ranawat,B. Ghelman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/RADIOLOGY.156.2.4011891

IF: 19.7

1985-08-01

Radiology

Abstract:Bursae or abscess cavities communicating with the hip joint were demonstrated by hip arthrography or by computed tomography (CT) in 40 cases. The bursae or abscess cavities were associated with underlying abnormalities in the hip, including painful hip prostheses, infection, and inflammatory or degenerative arthritis. Structures communicating with the joint capsule included iliopsoas bursae (13 cases), bursae associated with the greater trochanter (21 cases), ischiotrochanteric bursae created by abnormal articulation between the ischium and lesser trochanter (two cases), and abscess cavities not associated with a bursa (four cases). Symptoms may be produced directly as a result of infection or indirectly as a result of inflammation or pressure on adjacent structures. In cases of suspected infection, direct puncture and aspiration of the bursa or abscess cavity, in addition to joint aspiration, may be necessary to obtain organisms for culture as joint aspiration may not yield fluid. Hip arthrography can confirm a diagnosis of bursae and abscess cavities communicating with the hip joint in patients with hip pain or soft-tissue masses around the groin. Differentiation of enlarged bursae from other abnormalities is important to avoid unnecessary or incorrect surgery.
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence in Endograft Therapy Vs Medical Treatment for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

Jian Wang,Tao Jin,Bing Chen,Yifeng Pan,Changming Shao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2022.03.876

IF: 4.86

2022-01-01

Journal of Vascular Surgery

Abstract:Best medical therapy (BMT) should be recommended for treating uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection (uSTBAD), whereas thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) has been controversial for uSTBAD.In this paper, a meta-analysis was conducted on all available randomized controlled trials and observational studies that evaluated the relative benefits and harms of TEVAR and BMT for the management of patients suffering from uSTBAD. Primary endpoints consisted of early adverse events, long-term adverse events, and aortic remodeling. In addition, risk differences (RDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. The random-effects model or the fixed-effects model was used in accordance with the 50% heterogeneity threshold.Seven observational studies and two randomized controlled studies from 11 articles that contained 15,066 patients with uSTBAD (1518 TEVARs) met the inclusion criteria. For early outcomes, no significant differences were found between the TEVAR group and the BMT group in aortic rupture, retrograde dissection, paraplegia/paraparesis, reintervention, aorta-related death, and all-cause death. In the long run, the TEVAR group was found to have a significantly lower incidence of adverse events, which included aortic rupture (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.16-0.42; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .90, I2 = 0%), reintervention (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.75; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .17, I2 = 41%), aorta-related death (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .61, I2 = 0%), and all-cause death (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42-0.66; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .05, I2 = 53%) as compared with the BMT group. Moreover, in compared with BMT, TEVAR was found to significantly contribute to the complete thrombosis of thoracic false lumen (OR, 55.34; 95% CI, 34.32-89.21; P < .05; heterogeneity: P = .97, I2 = 0%), and aortic regression (true lumen expansion and false lumen shrinkage).Although early endovascular repair of uSTBAD does not outperform BMT, its implementation is found to be necessary to facilitate the long-term prognosis. Accordingly, if early TEVAR is to be deferred, close follow-up is critical to allow for timely reintervention.
Endovascular Therapy for Nonischemic vs Ischemic Complicated Acute Type B Aortic Dissection

Ahmed Eleshra,Tilo Kölbel,Giuseppe Panuccio,Fiona Rohlffs,E Sebastian Debus,Nikolaos Tsilimparis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1526602819888672

Abstract: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.
Endovascular Treatment of Type B Aortic Dissection in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease

Zhenyu Zhou,Min Zhou,Yong Ding,Xu Li,Yonggang Wang,Tianchen Xie,Zhenyu Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381221112550

IF: 1.1

2022-01-01

Vascular

Abstract:Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative and intermediate outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) undergoing TEVAR at our single center from January 2010 to December 2020. Patients with pre-existing ESRD were enrolled as the study group. One hundred consecutive patients from September 2013 to March 2015 without ESRD were included as the control group. The primary and secondary outcomes were adverse events and survival, respectively. Kaplan–Meier curves of survival and freedom from adverse events were calculated and analyzed using the log-rank univariate test. Multivariable analysis was used to isolate the effects of ESRD. Results A total of 39 patients with ESRD and TBAD underwent TEVAR during the study period. The median follow-up time of patients with and without ESRD was 45 and 46 months, respectively. There was significant difference between the survival at 4 years of patients with and without ESRD (72.8% vs 94.9%; p = 0.011). Meanwhile, the incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in patients with ESRD ( p = 0.026). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that ESRD (OR, 2.46; p = 0.049) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 4.11; p = 0.002) were the predictors of adverse events. Conclusions The rates of adverse events and survival expectancy were poor in patients with ESRD and TBAD.
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Traumatic Type B Aortic Dissection: a 5-Year Experience from a Single Center

Shuang Li,Wenwu Cai,Xin Li,Jian Qiu,Quanming Li,Chang Shu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/s0392-9590.17.03782-8

2017-01-01

International Angiology

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The aim of this paper was to share our experience and demonstrate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for traumatic type B aortic dissection (TTBAD).METHODS: Between October 2010 and October 2015, 36 patients, who have been diagnosed as TTBAD, were included. A computed tomography angiography (CTA) scan was performed to confirm the diagnosis and to localize the aortic entry. The clinical data and outcomes of these patients were retrospectively reviewed and collected for further analysis. CTATA scan follow-up was organized 1 week, 3 months, 6 months and yearly after the procedure.RESULTS: Thirty-six cases (48.7 +/- 15.8 years, 25 men) were included in this study. All the patients were successfully managed with TEVAR, and the perioperative mortality and 30-day mortality were zero. The mean hospitalization time was 14.6 +/- 8.4 days, with the mean intensive care unit ( ICU) stay time being 44.4 +/- 62.4 hours. After TEVAR, no cardiocerebral events happened, but 6 patients suffered from pulmonary infection, 1 patient suffered from renal failure, and type I endoleak occurred in 1 patient. The postoperative courses of the other patients were uneventful. All the patients were followed-up for 13.1 +/- 12.6 months, and we could affirm the stability of the implants and good quality of life of the included patients.CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of TTBAD by TEVAR with implantation of stent graft is technical possible, besides, it is remarkably safe and effective.
Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for uncomplicated type B dissections based on chronicity

Jaideep Das Gupta,Isaac N Naazie,Sina Zarrintan,Adam W Beck,Gregory A Magee,Mahmoud B Malas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2022.05.031

Abstract:Objective: The long-term results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) have been associated with improved aorta-specific survival and delayed disease progression compared with medical therapy alone. In 2020, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) reported new reporting standards and classification for TBAD. We assessed the effectiveness of TEVAR in the treatment of uTBAD stratified by the updated classification using the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Methods: The Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried for patients who had undergone TEVAR for uTBAD from August 2014 to November 2020. We analyzed the outcomes stratified by the SVS/STS reporting standards. The cohort was then grouped and compared using the updated chronicity classification (hyperacute, <24 hours; acute, 1-14 days; subacute, 15-90 days; and chronic, >90 days) and univariable methods (χ2, analysis of variance), multivariable logistic regression, and survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression). Results: Of 1476 TEVARs, 121 (8.2%) were for hyperacute, 833 (56.4%) for acute, 316 (21.4%) for subacute, and 206 (14.0%) for chronic uTBAD. The rates of in-hospital stroke for hyperacute and acute uTBAD were significantly higher than was the rate for chronic uTBAD. The rate of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) was significantly higher for hyperacute and subacute uTBAD than for chronic uTBAD but not for acute vs chronic uTBAD. After multivariable adjustment, no significant difference was found in the 30-day mortality between the four groups. However, the adjusted stroke risk was more than sixfold higher for hyperacute uTBAD than for chronic uTBAD (odds ratio [OR], 6.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-25.17; P = .004) and more than threefold higher for acute than for chronic uTBAD (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.04-11.24; P = .043). The adjusted risk of SCI was also significantly higher for hyperacute and subacute than for chronic uTBAD (OR, 19.17; 95% CI, 2.42-151.90; P = .005; and OR, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.11-67.21; P = .039, respectively) but not for acute vs chronic uTBAD (OR, 6.95; 95% CI, 0.93-51.88; P = .059). The risk of postoperative reintervention was threefold higher for hyperacute vs chronic uTBAD (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.19-7.69; P = .02). The Kaplan-Meier survival estimates revealed that the 1-year survival rate for hyperacute, acute, subacute, and chronic uTBAD was 83.2%, 87.2%, 92.3%, and 92.9%, respectively (P = .010). However, no significant differences were found in the hazard of 1-year mortality after adjustment for potential confounders. Conclusions: Using the updated SVS/STS chronicity classification, we found an increased risk of perioperative stroke, SCI, and the need for reintervention after TEVAR for uTBAD in the hyperacute periods compared with the chronic period. The updated classification should be incorporated into all future study designs for TEVAR trials. We would recommend avoiding TEVAR for uTBAD in the hyperacute phase.
Aortic Outcome after Implementation of a Treatment Strategy for Type B Aortic Dissection Involving the Aortic Arch

Ottavia Borghese,Angelo Pisani,Ana Lopez-Marco,Benjamin Adams,Aung Ye Oo,Viskas Kapil,Tara Mastracci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2024.07.102

2024-08-09

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the outcomes achieved after implementing a treatment strategy for non-A non-B (NANB) (B 1-2 D according to the latest consensus document of the Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) acute aortic dissection (AAD)). Methods: This retrospective observational study adhered to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. All cases of NANB AAD (B 1-2 D) treated at our institution between January 2016 and December 2022 were reviewed. Morbidity, mortality, aortic-related reintervention, and remodeling were analyzed. Results: Among 519 cases of acute aortic syndrome, n = 22 (4.2%) patients presented with NANB AAD (B 1-2 D) (n = 16,72.7% men, mean age 61.5 years+/14.7). Eleven cases were managed with best medical treatment (BMT) alone. Among them, one patient (9.1%) died suddenly 2 days after diagnosis for aortic rupture. Frozen elephant trunk procedure (FET) was required in the remaining 11 patients: 7 (31.8%) needed emergent operation for risks of impending aortic rupture or retrograde aortic dissection extension, and 4 (26.7%) underwent delayed surgery within a month from initial presentation. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 9.1% with both FET and BMT. At a median follow-up of 40 months (range 2 days-200 months) no other deaths occurred. A statistically significant differences in the rate of false lumen thrombosis (100% vs 55.5%, P = 0.033), and a significant positive aortic remodeling in zone 3 (P < 0.001) and 4 (P = 0.038) were reported in operated versus medically managed patients. Conclusions: The best treatment for NANB is not established. We advocate for medical stabilization with an operative approach that favors open surgery in the acute post dissection period, promotes aortic remodeling, and carries acceptable risk in centers where FET is performed routinely.
The classification of the plague-bacillus.

J. V. van Loghem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02272779

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

Abstract:
A Comb-Line Antenna Modified for Wideband Circular Polarization

K. Hirose,Keita Shinozaki,H. Nakano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/LAWP.2015.2394811

IF: 4.2

2015-01-21

IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters

Abstract:A sequential rotation technique is newly applied to a circularly polarized (CP) comb-line antenna. The antenna is analyzed using the moment method. First, a novel loop antenna is proposed as a CP radiation element. Next, the loop element is used for a comb-line antenna to radiate a CP wave. This reference antenna shows a bandwidth of 3% for a 3-dB axial-ratio criterion. Last, the comb-line antenna is modified for wideband CP radiation. It is both numerically and experimentally revealed that the CP wave bandwidth is wider than that of the reference antenna by a factor of five.
Choosing the correct treatment for acute aortic type B dissection

M Singh,E Hager,E Avgerinos,E Genovese,K Mapara,M Makaroun

Abstract:Acute type B aortic dissection is a life threatening disease process, which remains a clinical dilemma despite advances in technology, surgical technique and postoperative management. The variability of presenting symptoms, lack of a consensus on indications for treatment and differing opinions about the optimal timing for repair have added to the management confusion. Medical management has been the standard of care for acute uncomplicated type B dissection. Surgical repair and endovascular intervention are reserved for those who present with, or subsequently develop, dissection-related complications. Complicated dissections occur in 25% of cases and may include organ malperfusion, aortic rupture, periaortic hematoma, and uncontrolled hypertension. In the past decade thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has gained widespread acceptance as the modality of choice for the treatment of complicated type B dissection. This transition is representative of advances in technology, physician experience with aortic endografts and lower morbidity and mortality rates associated with TEVAR. The best medical therapy remains the standard of care for uncomplicated dissection, however this strategy fails to prevent long-term aortic-related morbidity and mortality. Recent data suggest that early TEVAR lowers aortic-related events and improves long-term aortic specific survival by covering the entry tear, promoting false lumen thrombosis and inducing aortic wall remodeling. The paucity of supporting data has created controversy surrounding the optimal treatment strategy for acute type B dissection. Nonetheless, recent healthcare trends show a paradigm shift towards the utilization of early TEVAR in acute type B dissection.
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection after Renal Transplantation

Chang Shu,QingGen Xiong,Jian Qiu,MingYao Luo,Kun Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.21399

2017-01-01

Oncotarget

Abstract:Thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is an effective treatment for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Here, we evaluated the early-midterm effectiveness and safety of TEVAR for treating TBAD patients after renal transplantation. Six patients with TBAD treated with TEVAR after renal transplantation were recruited between February 2012 and December 2016. They were then followed up with clinical examinations and computed tomography angiography (CTA). TEVAR was successfully performed in all patients (100%), and the primary tear sites were well covered by stents with or without coverage of the left subclavian artery. No severe complications occurred in any patient during perioperative period. The one-year survival rate was 100%, one patient died of renal graft failure and heart failure four years after TEVAR; the remaining five patients (83.3%) survived and exhibited no severe complications. Our findings show that TEVAR provides satisfactory short-midterm results for TBAD patients after renal transplantation. Moreover, our experience shows that it need relative longer proximal landing zone to prevent the endoleak and recurrence. However, regular hematodialysis, long-term immunosuppressive therapy, and blood pressure control remain crucial factors to prolong survival. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to evaluate the long-term prognosis in these patients.
Evaluation of Thoracic Endovascular Repair for the Treatment of Type B Aortic Dissection Complicated by Malperfusion

Hiroaki Kato,Noriyuki Kato,Takafumi Ouchi,Takatoshi Higashigawa,Hisato Ito,Ken Nakajima,Shuji Chino,Toshiya Tokui,Toru Mizumoto,Kensuke Oue,Yasutaka Ichikawa,Hajime Sakuma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3400/avd.oa.24-00036

2024-09-25

Abstract:Objectives: This study aims to investigate the efficacy of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) complicated by malperfusion. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent TEVAR for the treatment of TBAD complicated by malperfusion from June 1998 to June 2022 in four institutions. In addition to the common outcomes, including short- and medium-term mortality and morbidity, the preservation of each organ was investigated. Results: A total of 23 patients were included in this analysis. The 30-day mortality was 4% (1/23) of the patients. The overall survival rate was 87% at 1 year. The preservation rate of each organ was 33% (4/12) for the visceral organs, 85% (17/20) for the kidneys, and 100% (18/18) for the legs. Fisher's exact test showed a significant difference in the preservation rate between the viscera and the other organs (P = 0.018 vs. kidneys, P = 0.0025 vs. legs). It was shown that the survival rate of patients with visceral malperfusion was significantly lower than that of patients with non-visceral malperfusion (P = 0.006). Conclusion: In terms of mortality, TEVAR showed satisfactory results. The preservation of visceral organs was still challenging even with TEVAR and adjunctive measures.
Acute Type B Aortic Dissection: Insights From a Single-Center Retrospective Experience Over 12 Years

Alexandre Azoulay,Chris Serrand,Amine Belarbi,Pascal Branchereau,Giorgio Prouse,Kheira Hireche,Ludovic Canaud,Pierre Alric

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028241258401

IF: 2.6

2024-06-21

Journal of Endovascular Therapy

Abstract:Journal of Endovascular Therapy, Ahead of Print. Introduction:The treatment of acute type B aortic dissection (ATBAD) is currently a challenge for vascular surgeons, because of the early morbidity and mortality rates and the high risk of late aortic events up to 50% at 5 years. This study presents the initial outcomes of ATBAD treatment using optimal medical therapy alone or combined with proximal entry tear stent-graft coverage. Additionally, it provides an analysis of the evolution of the aortic diameter and its clinical consequences during the chronic phase in each group.Materials and Methods:Conducted as a retrospective, single-center study, we enrolled all consecutive ATBAD patients (n=130) treated between 2008 and 2020. The primary analysis studies the entire patient cohort based on their initial management approach, namely, medical treatment alone for uncomplicated ATBAD (n=67) or combined with stent-graft entry tear coverage (n=63). We also conducted a subgroup analysis to investigate factors associated with disease progression in the medical management group.Results:Median follow-up was 29.5 months. During this time aneurysmal evolution was observed in: 42.4% of cases in the medical group compared with 21.8% in the stent-graft group, primarily affecting the thoracic aorta. The stent-graft group exhibited significant aortic remodeling, with a decrease in false lumen (FL) and thoracic aortic diameters. Initial aortic diameter ≥40 mm and FL ≥22 mm were independent risk factors for aneurysmal degeneration. Five-year survival was consistent at 76.1% in both groups.Conclusion:This study confirms the safety and efficacy of stent-graft entry tear coverage for ATBAD. Initial thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) appears to reduce late aortic events by promoting aortic remodeling. Considering TEVAR's safety and potential to prevent late aortic complications, it may be considered for uncomplicated ATBAD patients with an initial aortic diameter ≥40 mm or an FL ≥22 mm.Clinical ImpactThis study validates the efficacy and safety of using endovascular stent grafts to seal the proximal entry tear in cases of acute type B aortic dissections, compared to optimal medical therapy. Aortic remodelling significantly benefits from endovascular stent graft coverage of the proximal entry tear. Given the heightened risk of late aortic events observed in the medical therapy cohort, there appears to be a necessity for including endovascular interventions in the management of uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections, particularly when aortic diameter is ≥40 mm and false lumen diameter is ≥22 mm.

surgery,peripheral vascular disease
Differences in In-Hospital and Follow-Up Outcomes Between Non-A Non-B Aortic Dissection and Type B Aortic Dissection Treated by Endovascular Based Treatment

Gen Li,Jun Li,Hongping Deng,Xiang Wei,Na Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744241249293

IF: 0.9

2024-04-24

Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract:Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Ahead of Print. ObjectivesNon-A non-B aortic dissection (AD) is a rare and life-threatening medical emergency, and it has been controversial whether it should be managed as type B aortic dissection (TBAD). The study aims to compare in-hospital and follow-up outcomes between patients with non-A non-B AD and those with TBAD treated by endovascular based treatment (EBT).MethodsFrom January 2017 to December 2021, 96 consecutive patients with non-A non-B AD met the inclusion criteria and underwent EBT. Patients with TBAD were matched to patients with non-A non-B AD at a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching analysis to correct for baseline confounding factors. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Aortic-related events were defined as dissection-related death, aortic rupture, retrograde type A aortic dissection, reintervention, and type Ia endoleak.ResultsPatients with non-A non-B AD required more TEVAR-related adjunctive procedures compared to TBAD patients during EBT and they required a longer ICU length of stay (36.0 vs 24.0 hours, P < .05) as well as a longer hospitalization (8.0 vs 7.0 days, P < .05) after EBT. There was no statistical difference in overall survival after EBT for patients with TBAD and non-A non-B AD. However, compared to patients with TBAD, non-A non-B AD patients had a higher rate of reintervention and experienced more aortic-related late events during follow-up.ConclusionPatients with non-A non-B acute AD who are treated with EBT do not have higher in-hospital or follow-up mortality rates compared to patients with type B AD. However, there is an increased risk of reintervention and aortic-related late events after the intervention during follow-up.

surgery,peripheral vascular disease
Preemptive treatment in the acute and early subacute phase of uncomplicated type B aortic dissections with poor prognosis factors

Charlotte Sachs,Fabien Vecchini,Marie Corniquet,Michel Bartoli,Pierre-Antoine Barral,Mariangela De Masi,Virgile Omnes,Philippe Piquet,Jean-Marc Alsac,Marine Gaudry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1362576

IF: 3.6

2024-04-27

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Objective: Due to its favorable outcome regarding late morbidity and mortality, thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is becoming more popular for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD). This study aimed to compare preemptive endovascular treatment and optimal medical treatment (OMT) and OMT alone in patients presenting uncomplicated TBAD with predictors of aortic progression. Design: Retrospective multicenter study Methods: We analyzed patients with uncomplicated TBAD and risk factors of progression in two French academic centers. Aortic events [defined as aortic-related (re)intervention or aortic-related death after initial hospitalization], postoperative complications, non-aortic events, and radiologic aortic progression and remodeling were recorded and analyzed. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Between 2011 and 2021, preemptive endovascular procedures at the acute and early subacute phase (<30 days) were performed on 24 patients (group 1) and OMT alone on 26 patients (group 2). With a mean follow-up of 38.08 ± 24.53 months, aortic events occurred in 20.83% of patients from group 1 and 61.54% of patients from group 2 ( p < .001). No patient presented aortic-related death during follow-up. There were no differences in postoperative events ( p = 1.00) and non-aortic events ( p = 1.00). OMT patients had significantly more aneurysmal progression of the thoracic aorta ( p < .001) and maximal aortic diameter ( p < .001). Aortic remodeling was found in 91.67% of patients in group 1 and 42.31% of patients in group 2 ( p < .001). A subgroup analysis of patients in group 1 showed that patients treated with preemptive TEVAR and STABILISE had reduced maximum aortic diameters at the 1-year ( p = .010) and last follow-up ( p = .030) compared to those in patients treated with preemptive TEVAR alone. Conclusion: Preemptive treatment of uncomplicated TBAD with risk factors of progression reduces the risk of long-term aortic events. Over 60% of medically treated patients will require intervention during follow-up, with no benefit in terms of postoperative events. Even after surgical treatment, patients in the OMT group had significantly more aneurysmal progression, along with poorer aortic remodeling.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection in 30 Patients

YANG Jue,GU Wen-da,LI Wei,ZHANG Xue-min,SHEN Chen-yang,ZHANG Xiao-ming

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-631x.2013.12.006

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the results of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for chronic type B aortic dissection.Methods From September 2005 to January 2013,30 patients with chronic type B aortic dissection received TEVAR.All patients were followed for 2-90 months [mean (33 ±25) months].Results All of the procedures finally achieved technical success.However,during TEVAR,there were transient endoleaks in 8 patients including type Ⅰ endoleaks in 3 patients,type Ⅱ endoleaks in 5 patients and persistent endoleaks in 3 patients which are type Ⅳ endoleaks.Type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ endoleaks were successfully managed during the procedures.There was no mortality or major complication during the perioperative period.Three patients died during follow-up:one patient died of carcinoma of the colon and two patients died of the complications of secondary interventions related to aortic dissection.Totally there were seven patients receiving secondary interventions.The Kaplan Meier actuarial survival curve showed a 5-year survival rate of 87.9％ and the 5-year survival rate without secondary intervention was 72.8％.Conclusions Early and midterm results showed that TEVAR was effective in treating chronic type B aortic dissection.
Midterm Prognosis of Type B Aortic Dissection with and Without Dissecting Aneurysm of Descending Thoracic Aorta after Endovascular Repair

Jian Wang,Jichun Zhao,Yukui Ma,Bin Huang,Ding Yuan,Yi Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45472-w

IF: 4.6

2019-01-01

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Few studies support guidelines for the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to address type B aortic dissection (TBAD) coexisting with descending thoracic aortic dissection and aneurysm (dTADA). This cohort study investigated midterm outcomes of TBAD with dTADA (dTADA group, n = 31) and without dTADA (non-dTADA group, n = 98) after TEVAR. Compared with the non-dTADA group, the dTADA group exhibited higher incidences of type Ia endoleak (29.0% vs. 3.1%, P < 0.001) and reintervention (16.1% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.045). The completely thrombosed rate of the thoracic false lumen was significantly lower in the dTADA group than in the non-dTADA group (45.2% vs. 80.6%, P < 0.001). Although the two groups exhibited similar mortality rates, TBAD coexisting with no regressive dTADA after TEVAR was an independent predictor of mortality (HR: 15.52, 95% CI: 1.614–149.233, P = 0.018). Moreover, the change percentages of false lumen retraction and true lumen re-expansion in the dTADA group were significantly inferior to those of the non-dTADA group at levels of 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th thoracic vertebra throughout follow-up. In conclusion, in the presence of preexisting dTADA, the failure of the dTADA to regress after TEVAR is associated with lower survival and a higher risk of reintervention.

Effects of isoprenaline isomers in man.

Endovascular repair versus best medical treatment for uncomplicated acute type B acute aorta dissection: a meta-analysis

Endovascular Repair of the Thoracic Aorta Combined with Drug Therapy in Acute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

[The good medical department].

Bursae and abscess cavities communicating with the hip. Diagnosis using arthrography and CT.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence in Endograft Therapy Vs Medical Treatment for Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection

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

Endovascular Treatment of Type B Aortic Dissection in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Traumatic Type B Aortic Dissection: a 5-Year Experience from a Single Center

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for uncomplicated type B dissections based on chronicity

Aortic Outcome after Implementation of a Treatment Strategy for Type B Aortic Dissection Involving the Aortic Arch

The classification of the plague-bacillus.

A Comb-Line Antenna Modified for Wideband Circular Polarization

Choosing the correct treatment for acute aortic type B dissection

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection after Renal Transplantation

Evaluation of Thoracic Endovascular Repair for the Treatment of Type B Aortic Dissection Complicated by Malperfusion

Acute Type B Aortic Dissection: Insights From a Single-Center Retrospective Experience Over 12 Years

Differences in In-Hospital and Follow-Up Outcomes Between Non-A Non-B Aortic Dissection and Type B Aortic Dissection Treated by Endovascular Based Treatment

Preemptive treatment in the acute and early subacute phase of uncomplicated type B aortic dissections with poor prognosis factors

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection in 30 Patients

Midterm Prognosis of Type B Aortic Dissection with and Without Dissecting Aneurysm of Descending Thoracic Aorta after Endovascular Repair