Key result
Endovascular intervention for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection may be deferred to the subacute phase for high-risk patients identified via high-intensity serial imaging.
Why the study?
While medical management has been the mainstay for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection, endovascular intervention is now considered a potential option, but timing and clinical outcomes remain debated.
Does endovascular intervention improve outcomes compared to medical management in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection?
Does endovascular intervention improve outcomes compared to medical management in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection?
A pragmatic approach of serial imaging and deferred endovascular management for high-risk patients is recommended for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection due to mixed evidence and procedural risks.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Endovascular options may improve outcomes in type B dissection; leaves open need for RCTs versus medical therapy.
Acute aortic dissection has an incidence of approximately half that of symptomatic abdominal and thoracic aneurysm of the aorta and more than twice the mortality of population-based controls. While urgent undelayed open surgery is the strategy of choice in proximal dissection, medical management has been the mainstay of treatment for uncomplicated distal or type B aortic dissection, but endovascular intervention is now considered a potential treatment option for all type B dissection due to its success in complicated cases. Endovascular repair can be technically demanding in aortic dissection, and timing of the repair can have a significant influence on anatomical and clinical outcome. Observational reports of feasibility and reasonable safety are flanked by only two randomised trials; the Acute Dissection Stent Grafting or Best Medical Treatment (ADSORB) trial demonstrated improved remodelling in acute dissection and the INvestigation of STEnt grafts in patients with type B Aortic Dissections (INSTEAD) trial showed better long-term survival in patients treated endovascularly in the subacute phase. Meta-analyses and other large clinical studies have demonstrated mixed results. Due to some risks associated endovascular repair and the requirement of specialist aortic care (which is not always available), a pragmatic approach for current management could involve high intensity serial imaging in the acute phase of a type B aortic dissection, thereby identifying complicated cases for early intervention and selection of patients at high risk of disease progression for deferred endovascular management in the subacute phase within 90 days.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuan et al. (2020) conducted a review in Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection. Endovascular intervention vs. Medical management was evaluated. Endovascular intervention for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection may be deferred to the subacute phase for high-risk patients identified via high-intensity serial imaging.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: