Why the study?
Does endovascular repair improve quality of life in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection?
Does endovascular repair improve quality of life in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection?
Endovascular repair for Stanford type B aortic dissection is associated with excellent survival and significant improvements in most quality of life domains at medium-term follow-up.
Endovascular repair linked to favorable mid-term outcomes and QoL in type B dissection; leaves open need for RCTs versus medical therapy.
BACKGROUND: Aortic dissection is a severe and life-threatening disease that is usually linked with numerous possible complications. Stanford type B aortic dissection patients often choose endovascular repair due to its mini-invasiveness and quick recovery. This study concerns with medial-term outcome and quality of life (QoL) in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection after endovascular repair. METHODS: From January 2014 until July 2016, 40 patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection received an endovascular repair. Of the total number of patients, 35 were males (87.5%) and 5 females (12.5%), mean aged 80.9±14.1 years. The Medical Outcomes Study-Short Form-36 (MOS SF-36) was used to assess the QoL preoperatively and after endovascular repair. The first follow-up (FU) of SF-36 questionnaire (FU1) was obtained within 3.9±0.3 months after repair, and the second (FU2), 25.6±6.5 months thereafter. RESULTS: None of patient died during the observational period, and one patient lost to FU. SF-36 observation showed the best-scoring domain was 'Role emotion', 'Vitality' and 'Mental health' were also scored well preoperatively. Except for 'Role emotion' and 'Mental health', all remained domains were significantly improved both FU1 and FU2. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair in patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection enables excellent clinical outcomes and QoL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bi et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: