• Marie-Elisabeth Stelzmueller, Richard Nolz, Stephane Mahr, Dietrich Beitzke, Florian Wolf, Martin Funovics, Guenther Laufer, Christian Loewe, Doris Hutschala, and Marek P Ehrlich.
• Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
• J. Vasc. Surg. 2019 Feb 1; 69 (2): 318-326.

ObjectiveThis study retrospectively assessed in-hospital mortality and long-term results of emergency thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for patients with life-threatening acute complicated type B aortic dissection (acTBD).MethodsBetween March 2001 and December 2016, there were 55 patients (40 male; median age, 52 ± 13 years) with an acTBD who were treated with TEVAR for malperfusion (58%), aortic rupture (18%), or persistent untreatable pain with true lumen reduction or rapid aortic diameter enlargement (24%) as a sign of disease progression. The patients were categorized according to clinical appearance into two groups: group A, malperfusion, pending rupture, or rupture; and group B, persistent ongoing pain, rapid enlargement of aortic diameter, or significant changes in the true to false lumen ratio. Four patients (7%) had undergone previous aortic surgery.ResultsTechnical success (coverage of the primary intimal tear) was achieved in 50 patients (91%). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 9% (n = 5), and there was a statistically significant difference in early mortality between group A and group B (7% vs 2%; P < .02). Causes of in-hospital death were all aorta related, including a rupture during the procedure and on the first postinterventional day in two patients and redissection (ascending aorta, n = 2; descending aorta, n = 1) with a consequent aortic rupture after TEVAR in the remaining three. Permanent neurologic dysfunction occurred in five patients (stroke, n = 2; paraplegia, n = 3). Overall, 19 patients (34%) developed early endoleaks (type IA, n = 5; type IB, n = 11; type II, n = 2; type IB plus type II, n = 1). Therefore, 5 patients needed early (within 30 days) endovascular intervention because of a type IA (n = 2), type IB (n = 3), or type II endoleak (n = 1) and the rapid progression of aortic diameter, persistent signs of ischemia (n = 2), or rupture (n = 1), whereas the remaining 14 patients were treated conservatively and followed up by computed tomography angiography. Seven patients with early endoleaks needed an endovascular intervention (n = 3) or conventional surgery (n = 4) because of aortic progression in the follow-up period (mean interval after procedure, 92 ± 56 months). The actual survival rates were 87%, 85%, and 75% at 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively, and freedom from aorta-related death was 87%, 87%, and 77% at 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively. Freedom from reintervention for any cause using a Kaplan-Meier analysis was 70%, 68%, 68%, and 63% at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years, respectively.ConclusionsTEVAR of acTBD has been proven to be an excellent treatment modality in this cohort of high-risk patients, with promising midterm and long-term results.Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

42 keywords...

hide…