Key result
A patent primary entry tear independently predicted the need for surgical or endovascular intervention in patients with remaining type B dissection after type A repair (OR 6.4; 95% CI 1.39-29.81; P=0.017).
Why the study?
Does the natural course and need for intervention differ between patients with a remaining type B dissection after type A repair and those with a primary type B aortic dissection?
Population
359 patients analyzed over a 10-year period.
Comparison
Remaining type B aortic dissection after… vs Primary acute type B aortic dissection
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
median 23 months (interquartile range 5-52)
Authors
Loading...
Supports closer surveillance after type A repair with patent entry tear; leaves open whether entry tear status should guide management differently than in primary type B dissection.
Cohort (n=359)
Does the natural course and need for intervention differ between patients with a remaining type B dissection after type A repair and those with a primary type B aortic dissection?
Odds Ratio: 6.4 (95% CI 1.39–29.81)
p-value: p=0.017
A remaining patent primary entry tear independently predicts the need for subsequent intervention in patients after surgery for acute type A aortic dissection, highlighting a distinct pathophysiological entity compared to primary type B dissection.
Krähenbühl et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Remaining type B dissection after type A repair and primary type B aortic dissection (n=359). Patent primary entry tear vs. Non-patent primary entry tear was evaluated on Need for intervention (surgery or TEVAR) during follow-up (OR 6.4, 95% CI 1.39-29.81, p=0.017). A patent primary entry tear independently predicted the need for surgical or endovascular intervention in patients with remaining type B dissection after type A repair (OR 6.4; 95% CI 1.39-29.81; P=0.017).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: