Abstract:Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the midterm and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) procedure to treat an uncomplicated acute and subacute type B aortic dissection (uATBAD) with high risk for subsequent aortic complications compared with the group of patients who received a conservative treatment protocol during the same period. Materials and methods: Between 2008 and 2019, 35 patients who had TEVAR due to uATBAD and those with conservative procedure (n=18) were included in a retrospective analysis and follow-up study. The primary endpoints were false lumen thrombosis/perfusion, true lumen diameter, and aortic dilatation. The aortic-related mortality, reintervention, and long-term survival were the secondary endpoints. Results: In the study period, 53 patients (22 females) with a mean age of 61.1±13 years were included. No 30-day and in-hospital mortality was recorded. Permanent neurological deficits occurred in 2 patients (5.7%). In the TEVAR group (n=35) and in a median follow-up period of 34 months, a significant reduction of maximum aortic and false lumen diameter as well as a significant increase of true lumen diameter were detected (p<0.001 each). Complete false lumen thrombosis increased from 6% preoperatively to 60% at follow-up. The median difference in aortic, false lumen, and true lumen diameter was -5 mm (interquartile range [IQR]=-28 to 8 mm), -11 mm (IQR=-53 to 10 mm), and 7 mm (IQR=-13 to 17 mm), respectively. In 3 patients (8.6%), a reintervention was needed. Two patients (1 aortic-related) died during follow-up. The estimated survival according to Kaplan-Meyer analysis was 94.1% after 3 years and 87.5% after 5 years. Similar to the TEVAR group, no 30-day or in-hospital mortality was recorded in the conservative group. During follow-up, 2 patients died and 5 patients underwent conversion-TEVAR (28%). In a median follow-up period of 26 months (range=150), a significant increase of maximum aortic diameter (p=0.006) and a tendency to augmentation of the false lumen (p=0.06) were noted. No significant reduction of the true lumen was seen. Conclusions: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients at high risk of subsequent aortic complications in uncomplicated acute and subacute type B aortic dissection is safe and is associated with favorable midterm outcomes regarding aortic remodeling. Clinical impact: In a retrospective, single center analysis of prospectively collected data with follow-up, we compared 35 patients with high-risk features who recieved TEVAR in acute and sub-acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection to a control-group (n=18). The TEVAR group showed a significant positive remoduling (reduction of max. aortic and false lumen diameter and increase of true lumen diameter (p<0.001 each)) during follow-up with an estimated survival of 94.1% after 3 years and 87.5% after 5 years.

Mid-term Outcomes from a Multicenter Study: is TEVAR Safe for Ascending Aortic Dissection?

A Single Center Experience of in Situ Needle Fenestration of Supra-Aortic Branches During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

Favorable Remodeling After TEVAR in Uncomplicated Acute and Subacute Type B Aortic Dissection in Comparison to Conservative Treatment: A Midterm Analysis

Surgical Repair of Two Kinds of Type A Aortic Dissection After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Retrograde Type A Aortic Dissection with an Entry Tear in the Descending Aorta.

Perioperative and Mid-Term Outcomes

Improved midterm outcomes after endovascular repair of nontraumatic descending thoracic aortic rupture compared with open surgery

Long-term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury: A 10 Year Multi-center Experience

Long-term Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Chronic Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection

Early and long-term effect of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for Stanford B aortic dissection

Ten-Year Clinical Characteristics and Early Outcomes of Type B Aortic Dissection Patients with Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

Clinical Follow-Up of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Treatment of Acute Stanford B Dissection

Clinical Effect of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection

Influence of Distal Entry Tears in Acute Type B Aortic Dissection after Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Off-the-Shelf Devices for Treatment of Thoracic Aortic Diseases: Midterm Follow-up of TEVAR with Chimneys or Physician-Made Fenestrations

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

Safety and Efficacy of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Acute Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection with Retrograde Type A Intramural Hematoma.

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

Outcomes and Aortic Remodelling after Proximal Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Post Type B Aortic Dissection Thoracic Aneurysm

Thoracic Endovascular Repair for Aortic Arch Pathologies with Surgeon Modified Fenestrated Stent Grafts: A Multicentre Retrospective Study

Prognosis and Remodeling after Endovascular Repair for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection.