Preemptive treatment in the acute and early subacute phase of uncomplicated type B aortic dissections with poor prognosis factors.

Objective: Due to its favorable outcome regarding late morbidity and mortality, thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is becoming more popular for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD). This study aimed to compare preemptive endovascular treatment and optimal medical treatment (OMT) and OMT alone in patients presenting uncomplicated TBAD with predictors of aortic progression. Design: Retrospective multicenter study. Methods: We analyzed patients with uncomplicated TBAD and risk factors of progression in two French academic centers. Aortic events [defined as aortic-related (re)intervention or aortic-related death after initial hospitalization], postoperative complications, non-aortic events, and radiologic aortic progression and remodeling were recorded and analyzed. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Between 2011 and 2021, preemptive endovascular procedures at the acute and early subacute phase (<30 days) were performed on 24 patients (group 1) and OMT alone on 26 patients (group 2). With a mean follow-up of 38.08 ± 24.53 months, aortic events occurred in 20.83% of patients from group 1 and 61.54% of patients from group 2 (p < .001). No patient presented aortic-related death during follow-up. There were no differences in postoperative events (p = 1.00) and non-aortic events (p = 1.00). OMT patients had significantly more aneurysmal progression of the thoracic aorta (p < .001) and maximal aortic diameter (p < .001). Aortic remodeling was found in 91.67% of patients in group 1 and 42.31% of patients in group 2 (p < .001). A subgroup analysis of patients in group 1 showed that patients treated with preemptive TEVAR and STABILISE had reduced maximum aortic diameters at the 1-year (p = .010) and last follow-up (p = .030) compared to those in patients treated with preemptive TEVAR alone. Conclusion: Preemptive treatment of uncomplicated TBAD with risk factors of progression reduces the risk of long-term aortic events. Over 60% of medically treated patients will require intervention during follow-up, with no benefit in terms of postoperative events. Even after surgical treatment, patients in the OMT group had significantly more aneurysmal progression, along with poorer aortic remodeling.

STABILISE (Stent-Assisted Balloon-Induced Intimal Disruption and Relamination in Aortic Dissection Repair) Is Associated With Good Anatomical Results on the Distal Thoracoabdominal Aorta at 2 Years.

PURPOSE: The aim of this comparative study was to evaluate the increased aortic diameter of the distal aorta after implementing the STABILISE technique in complicated type B aortic dissection (AD). DESIGN: This is a comparative monocentric retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent an STABILISE procedure for complicated AD between 2018 and 2020 were included and compared with a historic cohort treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) alone. Aortic diameters were measured at 6 different levels on the thoracic and abdominal aorta. The primary end point was an increased aortic diameter at 1 and 2 years. The exclusion criterion was the absence of a computed tomography (CT) scan at 1 or 2 years. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were included: 24 in the TEVAR group and 31 in the STABILISE group. At the level of the stent graft, there was a decrease in aortic diameters in both groups without significant differences. At the level of the distal aorta, there was an increase in aortic diameters in both groups without significant differences. There were significantly more patients in the TEVAR group with an unfavorable increase in aortic diameter >5 mm of the distal aorta at 2 years than in the STABILISE group: 8 (33%) vs 1 (3%) (p=0.01). For chronic ADs, a significantly greater increase in aortic diameters of the distal aorta was observed in the STABILISE group. CONCLUSIONS: The STABILISE technique is technically feasible and potentially leads to decreased longer re-intervention rates; indeed, more patients had an unfavorable increase in aortic diameter in the TEVAR group than in the STABILISE group at 2 years. The high rate of long-term distal aortic aneurysm progression and reintervention after TEVAR alone suggests that this option is not sufficient to definitively treat these complex patients. CLINICAL IMPACT: This article reported the results of stent assisted balloon induced intimal disruption and relamination (STABILISE) with a follow-up at 2 years. This is the first comparative study between STABILISE, which has emerged as a new technique inducing aortic remodeling and therefore better long-term outcome, and the standard technique TEVAR alone. STABILISE technique is associated with good results on the distal aorta at 2 years with a rate of patient with unfavorable aortic diameter evolution greater in TEVAR group compared to STABILISE group and could improve the long-term results on the distal aorta by inducing extensive aortic remodeling.

Risk Factors for Incomplete Aortic Remodeling With Stent-Assisted Balloon-Induced Intimal Disruption and Relamination in Aortic Dissection Repair for Complicated Aortic Dissection: Results of a Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: The STABILISE technique has extended the treatment of aortic dissection to the thoracoabdominal aorta to achieve complete aortic remodeling. The aim of this multicenter study was to analyze the short- and midterm anatomical results of the STABILISE technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with the STABILISE technique for complicated aortic dissection at 3 French academic centers. The aortic diameter at different levels was measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 1 year. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2020, 58 patients, including 47 men (average patient age: 60±11 years), were treated for type B aortic dissection in 34 cases and residual aortic dissection after type A repair in 24 cases. Three (5.2%) patients died postoperatively. Complete aortic remodeling (false lumen thrombosis and complete reapposition of the intimal flap) was achieved in 45/55 patients (81.8%), and false lumen thrombosis in the thoracic aorta was achieved in 52/55 patients (94.5%). At 1 year, with a computed tomographic (CT) scan available for 98.2% (54/55) of patients, we observed a significant decrease in the maximal thoracic aortic diameter and a significant increase in the aortic diameter at the bare-stent level compared with the preoperative CT scan. Severe aortic angulation (p=0.024) was a risk factor for incomplete aortic remodeling and significantly increased the aortic diameter (p=0.032). Chronic aortic dissection was associated with an increased risk of incomplete aortic remodeling (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: STABILISE for complicated aortic dissection results in false lumen thrombosis, complete reapposition of the intimal flap, and a decrease in the maximum aortic diameter in most cases. Incomplete reapposition of the intimal flap, which is more frequent in cases of chronic aortic dissection and severe aortic angulation, is a risk factor for a significant increase in the aortic diameter at the bare-stent level, and this risk justifies close follow-up and better patient selection. CLINICAL IMPACT: STABILISE technique for complicated aortic dissection results in false lumen thrombosis, complete aortic remodeling and a decrease in the maximum aortic diameter in most cases. At the bare-stent level, incomplete reapposition of the intimal flap, more frequent in chronic aortic dissection and severe aortic angulation, is a risk factor for an increased aortic diameter. This finding justifies close follow-up and better patient selection; thus, the STABILISE technique should be used with care in chronic aortic dissection and severe aortic angulation.