Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection.

BACKGROUND: A dissection of the aorta is a separation or tear of the intima from the media. This tear allows blood to flow not only through the original aortic flow channel (known as the true lumen), but also through a second channel between the intima and media (known as the false lumen). Aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition which can be rapidly fatal. There is debate on the optimal surgical approach for aortic arch dissection. People with ascending aortic dissection have poor rates of survival. Currently open surgical repair is regarded as the standard treatment for aortic arch dissection. We intend to review the role of hybrid and open repair in aortic arch dissection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a hybrid technique of treatment over conventional open repair in the management of aortic arch dissection. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 8 February 2021. We also undertook reference checking for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs), which compared the effects of hybrid repair techniques versus open surgical repair of aortic arch dissection. Outcomes of interest were dissection-related mortality and all-cause mortality, neurological deficit, cardiac injury, respiratory compromise, renal ischaemia, false lumen thrombosis (defined by partial or complete thrombosis) and mesenteric ischaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the literature searches to identify those that met our inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one ongoing study and two unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Due to a lack of study data, we could not compare the outcomes of hybrid repair to conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed one ongoing RCT and two unpublished RCTs evaluating hybrid versus conventional open repair for aortic arch surgery. Observational data suggest that hybrid repair for aortic arch dissection could potentially be favourable, but conclusions can not be drawn from these studies, which are highly selective, and are based on the clinical status of the patient, the presence of comorbidities and the skills of the operators. However, a conclusion about its definitive benefit over conventional open surgical repair cannot be made from this review without published RCTs or CCTs. Future RCTs or CCTs need to have adequate sample sizes and follow-up, and assess clinically-relevant outcomes, in order to determine the optimal treatment for people with aortic arch dissection. It must be noted that this may not be feasible, due to the reasons mentioned.

Development and Validation of a Simplified Probability Assessment Score Integrated With Age-Adjusted d-Dimer for Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Syndromes.

Background When acute aortic syndromes (AASs) are suspected, pretest clinical probability assessment and d-dimer (DD) testing are diagnostic options allowing standardized care. Guidelines suggest use of a 12-item/3-category score (aortic dissection detection) and a DD cutoff of 500 ng/mL. However, a simplified assessment tool and a more specific DD cutoff could be advantageous. Methods and Results In a prospective derivation cohort (n=1848), 6 items identified by logistic regression (thoracic aortic aneurysm, severe pain, sudden pain, pulse deficit, neurologic deficit, hypotension), composed a simplified score (AORTAs) assigning 2 points to hypotension and 1 to the other items. AORTAs≤1 and ≥2 defined low and high clinical probability, respectively. Age-adjusted DD was calculated as years/age × 10 ng/mL (minimum 500). The AORTAs score and AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD rule were validated in 2 patient cohorts: a high-prevalence retrospective cohort (n=1035; 22% AASs) and a low-prevalence prospective cohort (n=447; 11% AASs) subjected to 30-day follow-up. The AUC of the AORTAs score was 0.729 versus 0.697 of the aortic dissection detection score (P=0.005). AORTAs score assessment reclassified 16.6% to 25.1% of patients, with significant net reclassification improvement of 10.3% to 32.7% for AASs and -8.6 to -17% for alternative diagnoses. In both cohorts, AORTAs≥2 had superior sensitivity and slightly lower specificity than aortic dissection detection ≥2. In the prospective validation cohort, AORTAs≤1/age-adjusted DD had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 48.6%, and an efficiency of 43.3%. Conclusions AORTAs is a simplified score with increased sensitivity, improved AAS classification, and minor trade-off in specificity, amenable to integration with age-adjusted DD for diagnostic rule-out.

When to Consider Deferral of Surgery in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Review.

BACKGROUND: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a surgical emergency with an operative mortality of up to 30%, a rate that has not changed meaningfully in more than 2 decades. A growing body of research has highlighted several comorbidities and presenting factors in which delay or permanent deferral of surgery may be considered; however, modern comprehensive summative reviews are lacking. The urgency and timing of this review are underscored by significant challenges in resource use posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review provides an update on the current understanding of risk assessment, surgical candidacy, and operative timing in patients with ATAAD. METHODS: A literature search was conducted through PubMed and Embase databases to identify relevant studies relating to risk assessment in ATAAD. Articles were selected by group consensus on the basis of quality and relevance. RESULTS: Several patient factors have been identified that increase risk in ATAAD repair. In particular, frailty, advanced age, previous cardiac surgery, and use of novel anticoagulant medications have been studied. The understanding of malperfusion syndromes has also expanded significantly, including recommendations for surgical delay. Finally, approaches to triage have been significantly influenced by resource limitations related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Although medical management remains a reasonable option in carefully selected patients at prohibitive risk for open surgery, endovascular therapies for treatment of ATAAD are rapidly evolving. CONCLUSIONS: Early surgical repair remains the preferred treatment for most patients with ATAAD. However, improvements in risk stratification should guide appropriate delay or permanent deferral of surgery in select individuals.

The 301 Classification: A Proposed Modification to the Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection Classification for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Prognostication.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness of a modified Stanford classification for risk stratification of complications after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 201 patients from an observational multicenter cohort study who underwent TEVAR for TBAD from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016. The patients were divided by using a modified Stanford classification, termed 301, into 3 groups: types B1 (n=62) and B3 (n=24), with a true and false lumen, respectively, descending closely along the thoracic vertebral bodies, and type B2 (n=115), a semi-spiral or spiral configuration. The value of the 301 classification in assessing the risk for post-TEVAR thoracic aortic expansion, as main outcome, and other complications was assessed by using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Median follow-up duration was 26.37 months, and the 24-month cumulative rate of freedom from thoracic aortic enlargement was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.81) for type B3, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.83) for type B2, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88 to 0.99) for type B1. In the multivariable Cox regression models, types B2 and B3 with type B1 as reference were independently associated with the risk for thoracic aortic expansion (type B2: hazard ratio, 7.81; 95% CI, 1.84 to 33.13; type B3: hazard ratio, 13.91; 95% CI, 2.86 to 67.69). CONCLUSION: The 301 classification, a modified Stanford classification system in the era of endovascular repair, appears to improve the risk stratification of patients with TBAD undergoing TEVAR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number: ChiCTR-POC-17011726.

Fate of the Preserved Sinuses of Valsalva After Emergency Repair for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) present with heterogeneous involvement of the aortic root complex. Despite this variation, the aortic root can usually be preserved the majority of the time by Teflon (WL Gore, Newark, DE) inlay patch reconstruction of the dissected sinuses of Valsalva (SOV). In this study, we report the long term anatomic, functional, and clinical outcomes associated with the preserved SOV after surgery for ATAAD. METHODS: From 2002-2017, of 776 emergency ATAAD operations at a single institution, 558 (71.9%) underwent valve resuspension with SOV preservation. Echocardiography reports were reviewed to obtain postoperative SOV dimensions. Cumulative incidence of SOV dilation ≥ 4 5mm was calculated using the Fine-Gray method with death as a competing risk. Repeated-measures linear mixed effects model was used to determine risk factors for SOV growth over time. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 62 of 558 (11.1%) patients developed SOV diameter ≥ 45 mm. Cumulative incidence of SOV dilation ≥ 45 mm at 1, 5, and 10 years was 5.5%, 12.4%, and 18.9% respectively. In a multivariable Cox regression model, preoperative SOV diameter ≥ 45 mm was associated with a hazard ratio of 14.11 (95% confidence interval 7.03-31.62) for postoperative SOV dilation ≥ 45 mm. In a repeated-measures linear mixed effects model, preoperative and discharge SOV diameter were significant predictors of SOV dilation. Postoperative time course was also identified as significant indicating growth over time. CONCLUSIONS: The preserved sinuses of Valsalva after surgery for ATAAD may be prone to progressive dilatation over time. Closer echocardiographic surveillance may be warranted in these patients.

Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) reporting standards for type B aortic dissections.

This Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons (SVS/STS) document illustrates and defines the overall nomenclature associated with type B aortic dissection. The contents describe a new classification system for practical use and reporting that includes the aortic arch. Chronicity of aortic dissection is also defined along with nomenclature in patients with prior aortic repair and other aortic pathologic processes, such as intramural hematoma and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer. Complicated vs uncomplicated dissections are clearly defined with a new high-risk grouping that will undoubtedly grow in reporting and controversy. Follow-up criteria are also discussed with nomenclature for false lumen status in addition to measurement criteria and definitions of aortic remodeling. Overall, the document provides a facile framework of language that will allow more granular discussions and reporting of aortic dissection in the future.

Dissection of Arch Branches Alone: An Indication for Aggressive Arch Management in Type A Dissection?

BACKGROUND: It is controversial if extension of aortic dissection into arch branches should be an indication for replacement of the arch and its branches in acute type A aortic dissection. METHODS: From 2008 to April 2018, 399 patients underwent open repair for an acute type A aortic dissection, and 190 patients had known innominate and/or left common carotid artery dissection without malperfusion syndrome, including no arch procedure (n = 1)/hemiarch replacement (n = 109) and zone 1/2/3 arch replacement (n = 80) with replacement of 1 to 4 arch branch vessels. RESULTS: Median patient age was 58 years. Preoperative comorbidities were similar between groups, except the hemiarch group had more coronary artery disease (22% vs 3%, P = .0002). Both groups underwent similar aortic root procedures and other concomitant procedures with equivalent cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. The zone 1/2/3 group had longer hypothermic circulatory arrest times with greater use of antegrade cerebral perfusion (all P < .05). The perioperative and midterm outcomes were similar between the hemiarch and zone 1/2/3 arch groups, including 30-day mortality (7% vs 5%), rates of transient ischemic attack and stroke, incidence rates of reoperation for distal aortic pathology with a mean follow-up time of 3.5 years, and 5-year survival (79% [95% confidence interval, 69%-87%] vs 85% [95% confidence interval, 71%-93%]). However the hemiarch group had a trend of increased cumulative incidence of reoperation (8-year, 23% vs 9%; P = .33). CONCLUSIONS: In acute type A aortic dissection, dissection of arch branches alone should not be an indication for routine zone 1/2/3 arch replacement; however zone 1/2/3 arch replacement could be considered to prevent future reoperations in select patients.

Type B Aortic Dissection in Young Individuals With Confirmed and Presumed Heritable Thoracic Aortic Disease.

BACKGROUND: To investigate clinical course of patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) occurring at a young age with confirmed or suspected heritable thoracic aortic disease. METHODS: Individuals with TBAD occurring at an age <50 years enrolled in the National Registry of the Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Cardiovascular Conditions Consortium were selected for analysis. Three cohorts were compared: Marfan syndrome (MFS TBAD), nonsyndromic familial TBAD (FTBAD), and sporadic TBAD. Demographics, comorbidities, aortic dissection details, and repair were compared. RESULTS: A total of 150 individuals met inclusion criteria (mean age at TBAD, 36.9 ± 9 years): 73 MFS TBAD, 42 FTBAD, and 35 sporadic TBAD. The cohort of sporadic TBAD had more male patients (71.4%) and fewer individuals of European descent (51.4%) compared with MFS TBAD (57.5% male, 84.9% European descent) and FTBAD (59.5% male, 90.5% European descent). There was a stepwise increase in hypertension prevalence across the cohorts (28.8% MFS, 59.5% FTBAD, 71.4% sporadic TBAD, P < .001). Repair of the descending thoracic aorta was performed in 92 cases (67.1% in MFS, 61.9% in FTBAD, and 48.6% sporadic TBAD, P = .18) at a mean of 3.4 ± 5.4 years from TBAD. The repair extent varied. The largest extent of repair was in MFS TBAD, in which thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair was performed in 56.2% compared with 35.7% FTBAD and 17.1% sporadic TBAD (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Control of hypertension is an essential component of care to decrease the risk of TBAD. Over half of the young individuals with TBAD require aortic repair, and individuals with MFS undergo a larger anatomical extent of repair after TBAD.

The Impact of a Reentry Tear After Open Repair of Nonsyndromic Acute Type I Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: The role of a reentry tear in the descending thoracic aorta (DTA) after repair of acute aortic dissection is not well known. We therefore investigated the impact of reentry tear location on late aorta reintervention and the aortic expansion rate after open repair of acute type I aortic dissection. METHODS: We analyzed 309 nonsyndromic acute type I aortic dissection patients who were treated with a repair to the proximal aorta between 1994 and 2017. The locations of reentry tears, identified with predischarge computed tomography, were the proximal DTA in 119 patients (38.5%), distal DTA in 78 (25.2%), and abdominal aorta in 129 (41.7%). Patients who had a proximal DTA reentry tear were defined as the PDR group (119 [38.5%]), and the others were defined as the non-PDR group (190 [61.5%]). RESULTS: The 15-year freedom from aorta reintervention was significantly lower in the PDR group (51.5% ± 0.7% vs 90.4% ± 4.4%, P < .001). The aortic expansion rates of the proximal DTA (7.6 ± 16.1 mm/y vs 0.1 ± 2.5 mm/y, P < .001) and distal DTA (6.8 ± 15.5 mm/y vs 0.3 ± 3.1 mm/y, P < .001) were significantly higher in the PDR group. The 15-year freedom from significant aortic expansion was significantly lower in the PDR group (34.6% ± 6.9% vs 83.6% ± 7.9%, P < .001). Multivariate analysis showed that a proximal DTA reentry tear was an independent risk factor for aorta reintervention (hazard ratio, 4.955; 95% confidence interval, 1.691-14.523; P = .004) and significant aortic expansion (HR, 4.214; 95% CI, 1.691-10.498; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: A proximally located DTA reentry tear was associated with an increased risk of late aorta reintervention and distal aortic dilatation.

Optimal Treatment of Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Historically, the gold standard for treating acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD) has been aggressive medical therapy to achieve optimal heart rate and blood pressure control. However, recent data have demonstrated that a significant proportion of patients with medically managed acute uncomplicated TBAD have late aorta-related complications, such as aneurysmal degeneration, that increase mortality and often necessitate surgical intervention. In this review, the authors review existing literature on uncomplicated TBAD and highlight contemporary surgical and medical strategies to manage this condition. Looking ahead, efforts are underway to identify and characterize a high-risk subgroup of acute uncomplicated TBAD patients who may benefit from early intervention.

Type B Aortic Dissection - A Single Center Series.

BACKGROUND: Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The DISSECT classification aims to reunite clinical and anatomical characteristics of interest to clinicians involved in its management. This paper aims to characterize a cohort of patients admitted for type B aortic dissection in a tertiary institution. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that included all patients admitted to the hospital due to TBAD from 2006 to 2016. The computerized tomographic angiography that enabled the TBAD diagnosis were reevaluated using DISSECT classification. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were included in this case series. As to DISSECT classification, 79.3% were acute (Duration), 66% had a primary Intimal tear location in aortic arch, the maximum aortic diameter was 44±13mm (Size), 60% extended from aortic arch to abdomen or iliac arteries (Segmental Extent), 28% presented with Complications, and 28% had partial Thrombosis of false lumen. Six patients underwent intervention during the follow-up period. At 12 months, overall survival was 75.4%±8.3% and survival free of aorta-related mortality was 87.0±6.1%. Survival free of aortic dilatation was 82.6±9.5%. In univariate analysis, the presence of complications and chronic kidney disease associated with increased overall and aorta-related mortality rates. Hypertension was associated with aortic dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes after TBAD in a Portuguese center are reported. All interventions in TBAD were performed due to complications. The presence of complications and chronic kidney disease was associated with overall mortality and aorta-related mortality and hypertension with aortic dilatation. DISSECT classification was possible to apply in all patients.

Predicting in-hospital death in patients with type B acute aortic dissection.

The outcome of patients with acute type B aortic dissection (BAAD) is largely dictated by whether or not the case is "complicated." The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk factors leading to in-hospital death among patients with BAAD and then to develop a predictive model to estimate individual risk of in-hospital death.A total of 188 patients with BAAD were enrolled. Risk factors for in-hospital death were investigated with univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Significant risk factors were used to develop a predictive model.The in-hospital mortality rate was 9% (17 of 188 patients). Univariate analysis revealed 7 risk factors to be statistically significant predictors of in-hospital death (P < .1). In multivariable analysis, the following variables at admission were independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality: hypotension (odds ratio [OR], 4.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-18.90; P = .04), ischemic complications (OR, 8.24; 95% CI, 1.25-33.85; P < .001), renal dysfunction (OR, 12.32; 95% CI, 10.63-76.66; P < .001), and neutrophil percentage ≥80% (OR, 5.76; 95% CI, 2.58-12.56; P = .03). Based on these multivariable results, a reliable and simple prediction model was developed, a total score of 4 offered the best point value.Independent risk factors associated with in-hospital death can be predicted in BAAD patients. The prediction model could be used to identify the prognosis for BAAD patients and assist physicians in their choice of management.

Imaging characteristics of acute type A aortic dissection and candidacy for repair with ascending aortic endografts.

BACKGROUND: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAD) remains associated with substantial short-term mortality, and despite increasing rates of surgical repair, as many as 10% to 20% of patients do not undergo surgery because of comorbidities and dissection-related complications. For patients unable to undergo open repair, previous attempts at endovascular treatment of ATAD used devices originally designed for deployment in the descending thoracic aorta. Industry has begun to support early investigational devices meant specifically for placement within the ascending aorta. We evaluated relevant aortic parameters to examine which patients may be candidates for repair with an ascending aortic endograft. METHODS: We reviewed 100 consecutive patients in our institutional ATAD database with contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging on an Aquarius iNtuition workstation (TeraRecon, San Mateo, Calif), using curved planar reformatting (vessel tracking) and orthogonal views for measurements. We compared relevant aortic measurements against proposed criteria for future ascending endografts, including various landing zone diameters and intimal tear distances from the distal coronary ostium. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients examined, 39% had proximal intimal tears located outside the tubular ascending aorta. In all, 30% were excluded on the basis of either the presence of a prosthetic aortic valve or significant aortic insufficiency, and 6% were excluded on the basis of the presence of patent coronary artery bypass grafts from the ascending aorta. Many patients had multiple exclusion criteria, and based on various proposed criteria, overall candidacy ranged from 2% to 23%. If a maximum landing zone diameter of 42 mm and intimal tears as little as 20 mm distal to the distalmost coronary were considered treatable, only 8% of patients would have been candidates compared with 20% candidacy if aortic diameters up to 46 mm and intimal tears as little as 10 mm distal to the distalmost coronary were considered treatable. The most frequent single cause for exclusion was inadequacy of the proximal landing zone. Iliofemoral vascular access was also assessed and deemed adequate in >90% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of patients suffering ATAD would currently qualify for ascending aortic endografting on the basis of anatomic criteria alone. Future device designs should take into account these common anatomic exclusion criteria so that more versatile devices may be developed and commercially available to treat a larger number of patients.

Anatomic suitability for "off-the-shelf" thoracic single side-branched endograft in patients with type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment of type B aortic dissections with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has been adopted in many centers with the goal of covering the proximal entry tear. Coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSCA) is commonly required to achieve a dissection-free proximal seal zone. A novel thoracic single side-branched (TSSB) endograft device offers a potential off-the-shelf option to achieve total endovascular incorporation of LSCA during zone 2 TEVAR. The aim of this study was to determine what percentage of patients with type B aortic dissection who require zone 2 TEVAR meet the anatomical requirements for this device. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing TEVAR for type B aortic dissections at a single institution from 2006 to 2016 were evaluated. Three-dimensional centerline reconstruction of preoperative computed tomography angiography was performed to identify the diameter of the aorta, distances between branch vessels, diameter of the target branch vessel, and location of the primary entry tear. Only patients who met criteria for zone 2 TEVAR were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was percentage of patients that meet all anatomical requirements for TSSB. Individual criteria were evaluated independently, and results were stratified by dissection chronicity. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients who underwent TEVAR for Stanford type B aortic dissections were reviewed. Fifty-seven (66%) would have required zone 2 TEVAR. Indications for TEVAR were malperfusion (12), aneurysm (15), persistent pain (22), rupture (3), uncontrolled hypertension (5), and other (3). Mean follow-up was 19 months (range, 1-72 months). Only 16 of the 57 patients (28%) met all the requirements for anatomic suitability. The primary contributor was that only 49% of patients had sufficient length between arch branches to prevent coverage of a proximal branch. CONCLUSIONS: Although the new TSSB device can allow for a more proximal seal zone and eliminate the need for open aortic arch debranching, only 28% of patients with type B dissection who required zone 2 TEVAR met all the anatomic requirements for this device. Future devices will need to account for the short distance between the left carotid and LSCA to be more broadly applicable.

Comparison of type B dissection by open, endovascular, and medical treatments.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to address the shortcomings of previous clinical trials that were inadequate to prove the superiority of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in managing type B aortic dissection (TBAD) over open surgery (OS) or best medical treatment (BMT). The comparative effectiveness of these three treatments was analyzed using data of the National Inpatient Sample, a large U.S. database including patients from 4378 hospitals. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with a primary or secondary TBAD in the years 2005 to 2012 were included for analysis. Patients who had aortic aneurysm or received cardioplegia, valve repair, or operations on vessels of the heart were excluded. A three-category propensity score was created by using a multinomial logistic regression model, a three-way matching algorithm for 1:1:1 matching was applied, and a parallel outcome comparison between the three matched treatment groups was performed. RESULTS: Of a total of 54,971 patients included in the study, we matched 17,211 into three equal-size treatment groups (OS, 5755; TEVAR, 5695; BMT, 5761). No significant difference in the 22 baseline covariates was found in the matched cohort. We found TEVAR to have a much lower mortality rate than OS (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.79) or BMT (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.83). Mortality rates between OS and BMT were similar (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.74-1.27). We also found TEVAR to have a lower complication rate, shorter hospitalization, and lower medical cost compared with OS. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is superior to BMT or OS for treatment of TBAD in terms of mortality, complications, and cost.

The Modified Arch Landing Areas Nomenclature identifies hostile zones for endograft deployment: a confirmatory biomechanical study in patients treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair†.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to confirm whether the Modified Arch Landing Areas Nomenclature (MALAN) for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, in which each landing area is described by indicating both the proximal landing zone (PLZ) and the type of arch (e.g. 0/I), identifies unfavourable landing zones for endograft deployment in diseased aortas. METHODS: Preoperative computed tomography angiography scans of 10 patients scheduled for thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aneurysm or penetrating ulcer of the arch and with a potential hostile PLZ were reviewed. Five had proximal deployment planned in MALAN area 3/III and 5, in MALAN area 2/III. The angulation of each PLZ was calculated. Computational fluid dynamics modelling was used to compute magnitude and orientation of pulsatile displacement forces in each PLZ. Normalized values based on PLZ areas (i.e. equivalent surface traction) were calculated. Results were compared to those obtained in healthy controls stratified by the MALAN. RESULTS: Angulation was severe (>60°) in MALAN areas 3/III and 2/III, which was consistent with the findings obtained in healthy controls. Increased magnitude (P = 0.021) and unfavourable orientation (i.e. orthogonal to the longitudinal aortic axis) of equivalent surface traction (P = 0.011) was also found in these areas compared to the adjacent ones, following the same pattern seen in the controls. Adverse events related to proximal endograft performance were reported in 3/10 cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms in diseased aortas initial proof-of-concept findings on the predictive value of the MALAN to identify landing areas with a geometric and haemodynamic environment hostile for thoracic endovascular aortic repair. These adverse biomechanical features may entail an increased risk of dismal endograft performance.

Performance of current claims-based approaches to identify aortic dissection hospitalizations.

OBJECTIVE: To describe index visits for acute aortic dissection (AD) to an academic center and validate the prevailing claims-based methodology to identify and stratify them. METHODS: Inpatient hospitalizations at a single center assigned an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code for AD from January 2005 to September 2015 were identified. Diagnoses were verified by review of medical records and imaging studies. All visits were secondarily stratified with the algorithm based on ICD-9 codes. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted to evaluate the ability of the algorithm to correctly identify acute AD by Stanford class and treatment modality (type A open repair [TAOR], type B open repair [TBOR], thoracic endovascular repair [TEVAR], medical management [MM]). RESULTS: In the study interval, there were 1245 visits coded for AD attributed to 968 unique patients. Chart review verification demonstrated that the majority of visits were for AD (79%; n = 981), of which 32% (n = 310) were for an index acute AD event. The true distribution of acute AD visit classifications was TAOR (46.1%; n = 143), TBOR (5.2%; n = 16), TEVAR (7.7%; n = 24), and MM (39.4%; n = 122). The algorithm, which used ICD-9 codes, identified 631 acute visits and stratified them as TAOR (27.1%; n = 171), TBOR (4.1%; n = 26), TEVAR (4.9%; n = 31), and MM (63.9%; n = 403). Analyses demonstrated high specificities, but generally low sensitivities of the algorithm (TAOR: sensitivity, 58%, specificity, 92%; TBOR: sensitivity, 13%, specificity, 98%; TEVAR: sensitivity, 17%, specificity, 98%; MM: sensitivity, 73%, specificity, 72%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalent claims-based strategy to identify hospitalizations with acute AD is specific, but lacks sensitivity. Caution should be exercised when studying AD with ICD-9 codes and improvements to existing claims-based methodologies are necessary to support future study of acute AD.