Why the study?
Does thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) improve clinical outcomes compared to optimal medical therapy in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection?
Does thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) improve clinical outcomes compared to optimal medical therapy in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection?
This review highlights that while TEVAR is recommended for complicated TBAD, preemptive TEVAR may also benefit high-risk patients with uncomplicated TBAD, emphasizing the need for careful patient selection.
TEVAR may benefit select high-risk uncomplicated TBAD patients; leaves open need for RCTs to guide routine adoption.
Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is a life-threatening disease. Current therapeutic guidelines recommend medical therapy with aggressive blood pressure lowering for patients with acute TBAD unless they have fatal complications. Although patients with uncomplicated TBAD have relatively low early mortality, aorta-related adverse events during the chronic phase worsen the long-term clinical outcome. Recent advances in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) can improve clinical outcomes in patients with both complicated and uncomplicated TBAD. According to present guidelines, complicated TBAD patients are recommended for TEVAR. However, the indication in uncomplicated TBAD remains controversial. Recent results of randomized trials, which compared the clinical outcome in patients treated with optimal medical therapy and those treated with TEVAR, suggest that preemptive TEVAR should be considered in uncomplicated TBAD with suitable aortic anatomy. However, these trials failed to show improvement in early mortality in patients treated with TEVAR compared with patients treated with optimal medical therapy, which suggest the importance of patient selection for TEVAR. Several clinical and imaging-related risk factors have been shown to be associated with early disease progression. Preemptive TEVAR might be beneficial and should be considered for high-risk patients with uncomplicated TBAD. However, an interdisciplinary consensus has not been established for the definition of patients at high-risk of TBAD, and it should be confirmed by experts including physicians, radiologists, interventionalists, and vascular surgeons. This review summarizes the current understanding of the therapeutic strategy in patients with TBAD based on evidence and expert consensus.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shuichiro Kaji (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: