Endovascular repair vs conservative therapy for the treatment of acute type B aortic dissection

Objectives To compare endovascular aortic repair (EVR) and medical therapy for acute type B aortic dissection (AD) in terms of treatment results.Methods From January 2004 to October 2010 116 cases were collected and were divided into two groups,with treatment of EVR (n =60)and medical therapy (n ＝ 56).Treatment outcomes were assessed.Results Clinical manifestations of AD are complex and variable,with the most common symptom being pain on chest and back (74.1％).CTA is the most valuable method in confirming the diagnosis of aortic dissection.In conservative group of 56 patients admitted to hospital,30-day mortality rate was 16.1％.In EVR group of 60 patients with grafts successfully released,the 30-day mortality was 1.7％.There is significant difference between the two groups on mortality rate during 30-day(P ＜0.05).Follow-up rate in conservative group and the EVR group was 71.4％ and 86.7％,with average follow-up time of (38 ± 16) months and (35 ± 14) months.The 5-year survival rates were 87.5％ and 88.5％ respectively in conservative group and EVR group (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions EVR is considered to be the first choice for acute Stanford type B dissection.EVR can improve patients' 30-day survival,though long term result is comparable with that of conservative treatment.