Criteria for endovascular intervention in type B aortic dissection. Issue 4 (27th January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Singh, Sidhant; Palanca, Joaquin A.; Austin, Natasha J.; Tan, Sven Z.C.P.; Jubouri, Matti; Bailey, Damian M.; Williams, Ian M.; Nienaber, Christoph A.; Coselli, Joseph S.; Bashir, Mohamad
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiac surgery. Volume 37:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 987
• Page End: 992
• Publication Date: 2022-01-27
• Subjects: aorta -- dissection -- endovascular -- TEVAR; Heart -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.412005
• DOI: 10.1111/jocs.16267
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0886-0440

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un‐TBAD) remains controversial. There is a lack of consensus over whether pre‐emptive TEVAR should be carried out in patients with un‐TBAD at risk of progression to complicated TBAD. We present a review of current evidence and seek to suggest criteria where endovascular intervention in un‐TBAD may prove beneficial relative to pharmacotherapy alone. Methods and materials: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched using terms including: type B aortic dissection, risk factors, medical therapy, TEVAR, false lumen (FL) expansion, and mortality. Papers were selected based on title and abstract. Results: Optimal medical therapy remains the mainstay treatment for patients with un‐TBAD, however, patients with un‐TBAD present with varying degrees of disease progression risk. Factors such as age, aortic morphology, history of connective tissue disorders, FL thrombosis, and aortic branch involvement may potentiate progression from un‐TBAD to complicated TBAD. Short‐ and long‐term outcomes associated with TEVAR for TBAD remain promising. Conclusion: Pre‐emptive TEVAR may be beneficial in patients with un‐TBAD presenting with the above factors, however, further prospective research into the optimal timing for TEVAR in un‐TBAD is required.