Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 62 - SC26
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1367287

Effectiveness and limitation of endovascular repair for type B aortic dissection: perspective from long-term results

K. Shimamura 1, T. Kuratani 2, Y. Shirakawa 2, K. Torikai 3, Y. Watanabe 3, T. Sakamoto 3, T. Shijo 3, H.C.K. Reichenspurner 1, Y. Sawa 3
  • 1University Heart Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
  • 2Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Minimally Invasive Cardiovascular Medicine, Osaka, Japan
  • 3Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Osaka, Japan

Introduction: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has developed to be the first line procedure to treat the complications of acute (within 14days from onset) type B aortic dissection, and recent studies suggest that it could even be embraced to replace the open surgery for managing uncomplicated chronic (after 14days form onset) dissection by preventing late aorta-specific mortality. Moreover, several studies suggested the impact of chronicity of the dissection to the long-term result, however its detailed analysis is still not yet described.

Patients and method: We retrospectively analyzed 251 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs for type B dissection performed between 1993 and 2013 in Osaka University. The patients (Male 199(79.3%), average 64.5 y.o) were treated both in acute phase (complicated or at risk for developing complication, n = 50) and in chronic phase (aortic diameter >50 mm or rapid enlargement, n = 201). The patients are divided into 4 groups by its treatment timing from symptom onset (Group A (n = 50): within 14days, B(n = 49): 15days to 3 month, C(n = 28): 3 month to1 year, D(n = 84): more than 1year), and early and long-term results were analyzed.

Result: The rate of operative mortality (A: 6.0%, B:0%, C:0%, D:1.2%) , stroke (A: 4.0%, B: 2.0%, C:0%, D:2.4%) were similar in all groups, and no spinal cord ischemia was observed. In long-term (average 40.8 month) follow up, the achievement of aortic remodeling at 6 month postoperatively was higher in group A and B (A:66.7%, B:71.4%, C:28.6%, D:42.3%, p = 0.0018). The aorta-specific survival (A: 92.7%, B:90.0%, C:71.8%, D:97.2% at 10year) and freedom from aortic event (A: 56.5% , B: 76.9%, C: 61.2%, D: 42.9% at 10year) were statistically similar in all groups, however the possibility to require re-intervention for persistent false lumen enlargement had a tendency to be high in more chronic group (A: 0%, B: 8.4%, C: 23.5%, D: 37.8% at 10year).

Conclusion: TEVAR was an effective procedure for type B dissection, however in more chronic dissection, the achievement of aortic remodeling could be difficult and re- entry intervention would be required. The undergoing prospective trial could provide important information to decide the treatment strategy for type B dissection.