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.

The Value of Aortic Volume and Intraluminal Thrombus Quantification for Predicting Aortic Events after Endovascular Thoracic Aneurysm Repair.

Objectives: To assess the ability of the aortic aneurysm volume (AAV), aneurysmal lumen volume (ALV), and aneurysmal thrombus volume (ATV) to predict the need for aortic reintervention when using the maximal aortic diameter as a reference. Methods: This monocentric retrospective study included 31 consecutive patients who underwent successful thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to treat an atheromatous thoracic aortic aneurysm. All patients underwent clinical and computed tomography angiography (CTA) for 3 years after TEVAR. The patients were categorized into group 0 if no aortic reintervention was required during the follow-up period and categorized into group 1 if they experienced a type I or III endoleak or aneurysm diameter increase requiring intervention. The maximum aneurysm sac diameter and the AAV, ALV, and ATV were calculated using CTA images obtained preoperatively (T0) and at 6-12 months (T1), 24 months (T2), and 36 months (T3) postoperatively, and their changes over time were analyzed. Correlations between diameter and changes in AAV, ALV, and ATV were assessed, and the association between diameter and volume changes and reintervetion was examined. The cutoff values for predicting the need for reintervention was determined using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The accuracy of volume change versus diameter change for predicting the need for reintervention was analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in terms of the mean aneurysm diameter or AAV, ALV or ATV between the groups at preoperative CTA or after one year of follow-up imaging. The mean ATV was higher in group 1 than in group 0 at 2 years (187.6 ± 86.3 mL vs. 114.7 ± 64.7 mL; p = 0.057) and after 3 years (195.0 ± 86.7 mL vs. 82.1 ± 39.9 mL; p = 0.013). The maximal diameter was greater in group 1 than in group 0 at 3 years (67.3 ± 9.5 mm vs. 55.3 ± 12.6 mm; p = 0.044). The rate of AAV change between T0 and T1 was significantly higher in group 1 (7 ± 4.5%) than in group 0 (-6 ± 6.8%; p < 0.001). The rate of ATV change between T1-T3 was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 0 (34 ± 40.9% vs. -13 ± 14.4% (p = 0.041)); similar results were observed for the rate of ATV change between T2 and T3 (27 ± 50.1% for group 1 vs. -8 ± 49.5% in group 0 (p < 0.001)). According to our multivariate analysis, the annual growth rate for AAV between T0 and T1 was the only independent factor that was significantly associated with aortic reintervention (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.84, OR = 1.57, p = 0.025; optimal cutoff +0.4%). An increase in the annual growth rate of the ATV between T0 and T3 was independently associated with the need for aortic reintervention (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.90, OR = 1.11, p = 0.0347; optimal cutoff +10.1%). Conclusions: Aortic volume analysis can predict the need for aortic reintervention more accurately and earlier than maximal aortic diameter.

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.

In Marfan Syndrome and Related Diseases, STABILISE Technique Should Be Used with Care: Results from a Volumetric Comparative Study of Endovascular Treatment for Aortic Dissection.

Objectives: Aortic dissection in patients with Marfan and related syndromes (HTAD) is a serious pathology whose treatment by thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to assess the results of the TEVAR for aortic dissection in patients with HTAD as compared to a young population without HTAD. Methods: The study received the proper ethical oversight. We performed an observational exposed (confirmed HTAD) vs. non-exposed (<65 years old) study of TEVAR-treated patients. The preoperative, 1 year, and last available CT scans were analyzed. The thoracic and abdominal aortic diameters, aortic length, and volumes were measured. The entry tears and false lumen (FL) status were assessed. The demographic, clinical, and anatomic data were collected during the follow-up. Results: Between 2011 and 2021, 17 patients were included in the HTAD group and 22 in the non-HTAD group. At 1 year, the whole aortic volume increased by +21.2% in the HTAD group and by +0.2% the non-HTAD groups, p = 0.005. An increase in the whole aortic volume > 10% was observed in ten cases (58.8%) in the HTAD group and in five cases (22.7%) in the non-HTAD group (p = 0.022). FL thrombosis was achieved in nine cases (52.9%) in the HTAD group vs. twenty (90.9%) cases in the non-HTAD group (p < 0.01). The risk factors for unfavorable anatomical evolution were male gender and the STABILISE technique. With a linear model, we observed a significantly different aortic volume evolution between the two groups (p < 0.01) with the STABILISE technique; this statistical difference was not found in the TEVAR subgroup. In the HTAD patients, there was a significant difference in the total aortic volume evolution progression between the patients treated with the STABILISE technique and the patients treated with TEVAR (+160.1 ± 52.3% vs. +47 ± 22.5%, p < 0.01 and +189.5 ± 92.5% vs. +58.6 ± 34.8%, p < 0.01 at 1 year and at the end of follow-up, respectively). Conclusions: TEVAR in the HTAD patients seemed to be associated with poorer anatomical outcomes at 1 year. This result was strongly related to the STABILISE technique which should be considered with care in these specific patients.

Reintervention of Residual Aortic Dissection after Type A Aortic Repair: Results of a Prospective Follow-Up at 5 Years.

Background After a type A aortic dissection repair, a patent false lumen in the descending aorta is the most common situation encountered, and is a well-known risk factor for aortic growth, reinterventions and mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term results of residual aortic dissection (RAD) at a high-volume aortic center with prospective follow-up. Methods In this prospective single-center study, all patients operated for type A aortic dissection between January 2017 and December 2022 were included. Patients without postoperative computed tomography scans or during follow-up at our center, and patients without RAD were excluded. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality during follow-up for patients with RAD. The secondary endpoints were perioperative mortality, rate of distal aneurysmal evolution, location of distal aneurysmal evolution, rate of distal reinterventions, outcomes of distal reinterventions, and aortic-related death during follow-up. Results In total, 200 survivors of RAD comprised the study group. After a mean follow-up of 27.2 months (1-66), eight patients (4.0%) died and 107 (53.5%) had an aneurysmal progression. The rate of distal reintervention was 19.5% (39/200), for malperfusion syndrome in seven cases (3.5%) and aneurysmal evolution in 32 cases (16.0%). Most reinterventions occurred during the first 2 years (82.1%). Twenty-seven patients were treated for an aneurysmal evolution of RAD including aortic arch with hybrid repair in 21 cases and branched aortic arch endoprosthesis in six cases. In the hybrid repair group, there was no death, and the rate of morbidity was 28.6% (6/21) (one minor stroke, one pulmonary complication, one recurrent paralysis with complete recovery and three major bleeding events). In the branched endograft group, there was no death, no stroke, and no paraplegia. There was one case (16.7%) of carotid dissection. Complete aortic remodeling or complete FL thrombosis on the thoracic aorta was found in 18 cases (85.7%) and in five cases (83.3%) in the hybrid and branched endograft groups, respectively. Conclusions: Despite a critical course in most cases of RAD, with a high rate of aneurysmal evolution and reintervention, the long-term mortality rate remains low with a close follow-up and a multidisciplinary management in an expert center.

Volume Analysis to Predict the Long-Term Evolution of Residual Aortic Dissection after Type A Repair.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the aortic diameter and volume during the first year after a type A repair to predict the long-term prognosis of a residual aortic dissection (RAD). Methods: All patients treated in our center for an acute type A dissection with a RAD and follow-up > 3 years were included. We defined two groups: group 1 with dissection-related events (defined as an aneurysmal evolution, distal reintervention, or aortic-related death) and group 2 without dissection-related events. The aortic diameters and volume analysis were evaluated on three postoperative CT scans: pre-discharge (T1), 3−6 months (T2) and 1 year (T3). Results: Between 2009 and 2016, 54 patients were included. Following a mean follow-up of 75.4 months (SD 31.5), the rate of dissection-related events was 62.9% (34/54). The total aortic diameters of the descending thoracic aorta were greater in group 1 at T1, T2 and T3, with greater diameters in the FL (p < 0.01). The aortic diameter evolution at 3 months was not predictive of long-term dissection-related events. The total thoracic aortic volume was significantly greater in group 1 at T1 (p < 0.01), T2 (p < 0.01), and T3 (p < 0.01). At 3 months, the increase in the FL volume was significantly greater in group 1 (p < 0.01) and was predictive for long-term dissection-related events. Conclusion: This study shows that an initial CT scan volume analysis coupled with another at 3 months is predictive for the long-term evolution in a RAD. Based on this finding, more aggressive treatment could be given at an earlier stage.

Results of a prospective follow-up study after type A aortic dissection repair: a high rate of distal aneurysmal evolution and reinterventions.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the anatomical evolution of residual aortic dissection after type A repair and factors associated with poor prognosis at a high-volume aortic centre. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2019, all type A aortic dissections were included for prospective follow-up. Patients without follow-up computed tomography (CT) scan available for radiological analysis and patients without residual aortic dissection were excluded from this study. The primary end point was a composite end point defined as dissection-related events including aneurysmal evolution (increased diameter > 5 mm/year), aortic reintervention for malperfusion syndrome, aortic diameter >55 mm, rapid aortic growth >10 mm/year or aortic rupture and death. The secondary end points were risk factors for dissection-related events and reintervention analysis. All immediate and last postoperative CT scans were analysed. RESULTS: Among 104 patients, after a mean follow-up of 20.4 months (8-41), the risk of dissection-related events was 46.1% (48/104) and the risk of distal reintervention was 17.3% (18/104). Marfan syndrome (P < 0.01), aortic bicuspid valve (P = 0.038), innominate artery debranching (P = 0.025), short aortic cross-clamp time (P = 0.011), initial aortic diameter >40 mm (P < 0.01) and absence of resection of the primary entry tear (P = 0.015) were associated with an increased risk of dissection-related events or reintervention during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Residual aortic dissection is a serious disease requiring close follow-up at an expert centre. This study shows higher reintervention and aneurysmal development rates than currently published. To improve long-term outcomes, the early demographic and anatomic poor prognostic factors identified may be used for more aggressive treatment at an early phase.

Prevalence of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms in Patients with Degenerative Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Results from the Prospective ACTA Study.

OBJECTIVE: There are no recommendations for screening for thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs), even in patients with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of TAAs in patients with AAAs and to analyse the risk factors for this association. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective study. The Aortic Concomitant Thoracic and Abdominal Aneurysm (ACTA) study included 331 patients with infrarenal AAAs > 40 mm between September 2012 and May 2016. These patients were prospectively enrolled in three French academic hospitals. RESULTS: Patients were classified as having a normal, aneurysmal, or ectatic (non-normal, non-aneurysmal) thoracic aorta according to their maximum aortic diameter indexed by sex, age, and body surface area. Thoracic aortic ectasia (TAE) was defined as above or equal to the 90th percentile of normal aortic diameters according to gender and body surface area. Descending TAA was defined as ≥ 150% of the mean normal value, and ascending TAA as > 47 mm in men and 42 mm in women; 7.6% (n = 25) had either an ascending (seven cases; 2.2%) or descending aortic TAA (18 cases; 5.4%), and 54.6% (n = 181) had a TAE. Among the 25 patients with TAAs, five required surgery; two patients had TAAs related to penetrating aortic ulcers < 60 mm in diameter, and three had a TAA > 60 mm. In the multinomial regression analysis, atrial fibrillation (AF) (odds ratio [OR] 11.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.18 - 59.13; p = .004) and mild aortic valvulopathy (OR 2.89, 1.04-8.05; p = .042) were independent factors associated with TAAs. Age (OR 1.06, CI 1.02 - 1.09; p = .003) and AF (OR 4.36, 1.21 - 15.61; p = .024) were independently associated with ectasia. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that TAAs coexisting with AAAs are not rare, and one fifth of these TAAs are treated surgically. Systematic screening by imaging the whole aorta in patients with AAAs is clinically relevant and should lead to an effective prevention policy.

Type B Aortic Dissection Treated With a Branched Aortic Arch Stent Graft and the STABILISE Technique.

We report the case of a 57-year-old woman diagnosed with an asymptomatic chronic type B aortic dissection. The maximum aortic diameter was 70 mm in the proximal descending thoracic aorta. The entry tear was located at the aortic isthmus, and the proximal neck included all of the supra-aortic trunks. The targeted proximal neck was ≥ 25 mm. The dissection extended to the infrarenal aorta. The patient was treated with a custom branched aortic graft with two branches, one for the innominate trunk and one for the left common carotid artery, combined with the stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination technique. This combined technique seemed to provide a proximal seal zone in the arch and allow remodeling of the distal aorta in this patient with aneurysmal type B aortic dissection.

Early thoracoscopic resection of an atypical upper extralobar sequestration.

We report a very rare case of complex upper extralobar pulmonary sequestration, detected during pregnancy and resected early because the diagnosis was uncertain (possibility of a teratoma). At 2 months, the upper left pulmonary lesion was completely removed by thoracoscopy. Pathology concluded an extralobar sequestration associated with a duplication cyst of mixed bronchogenic and esophageal type. The postoperative course was uneventful. The early thoracoscopic approach in this type of antenatally diagnosed lesion was a good option.