Key result
Proximal TEVAR landing in zone 2 was associated with higher rates of aortic reinterventions compared to zone 3 (33% vs. 15%, p=0.031) in patients with complicated TBAD or IMH.
Why the study?
TEVAR is the preferred treatment for complicated TBAD or IMH, but the association of the proximal landing zone and its morphology with long-term outcomes required investigation.
Does proximal TEVAR landing in zone 2 compared to zone 3 affect the rate of aortic reintervention in patients with complicated type B aortic dissection or intramural hematoma?
Cohort (n=94)
Does proximal TEVAR landing in zone 2 compared to zone 3 affect the rate of aortic reintervention in patients with complicated type B aortic dissection or intramural hematoma?
In patients undergoing TEVAR for complicated TBAD or IMH, proximal landing in zone 3 is associated with lower rates of long-term aortic reintervention, spinal cord ischemia, and pSINE compared to landing in zone 2.
Zone 3 landing may reduce reinterventions and complications in TEVAR for TBAD/IMH; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the preferred treatment for complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) or intramural hematoma (IMH). This study aimed to investigate the association of the proximal landing zone and its morphology with long-term outcomes in patients with TBAD or IMH. A total of 94 patients who underwent TEVAR for TBAD or IMH between 10/2003 and 01/2020 were included. The cohort was divided according to the proximal landing in Ishimaru zone 2 or 3 and the presence of a healthy landing zone (HLZ; non-dissected or aneurysmatic, ≥2 cm length). Primary outcome was freedom from aortic reintervention. Secondary endpoints were freedom from aortic growth, stroke, spinal cord ischemia, retrograde dissection, proximal stent-graft induced new entry (pSINE), debranching failure, and mortality. Outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with mortality as a competing risk. A proximal TEVAR landing in zone 2 was associated with higher rates of reinterventions compared to zone 3 (33% vs. 15%, p = 0.031), spinal cord ischemia (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.037), and pSINE (13% vs. 2%, p = 0.032). No difference was found for the other outcomes, including mortality. Landing in dissected segments was not associated with impaired results. Proximal TEVAR landing in zone 3 may be preferable with regard to long-term aortic reintervention in patients with TBAD or IMH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dueppers et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Complicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) or intramural hematoma (IMH) (n=94). Proximal TEVAR landing in Ishimaru zone 2 vs. Proximal TEVAR landing in Ishimaru zone 3 was evaluated on Freedom from aortic reintervention (p=0.031). Proximal TEVAR landing in zone 2 was associated with higher rates of aortic reinterventions compared to zone 3 (33% vs. 15%, p=0.031) in patients with complicated TBAD or IMH.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: