These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The Impact of Oversizing in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair on Long-Term Outcomes in Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
    Author: Xiang D, Chai B, Huang J, Liang H, Liang B, Zhao H, Zheng C.
    Journal: J Endovasc Ther; 2024 Oct; 31(5):862-872. PubMed ID: 37078474.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of oversizing in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on early and long-term survival and major adverse events in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (TBAD). METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2018, 226 patients who were diagnosed with uncomplicated TBAD and received TEVAR were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into ≤5% oversizing (n=153) and >5% oversizing (n=73) groups. Primary end points were all-cause and aortic-related mortalities. Secondary end points were procedure-related complications, including retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD), endoleak, distal stent-induced new entry (SINE), and late reintervention. All-cause and aortic-related mortalities were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival method, while procedure-related complications were evaluated using a competing risk model with all-cause death as a competing risk. RESULTS: Mean oversizing was 2.1%±1.5% in the ≤5% oversizing group and 9.6%±4.1% in the >5% oversizing group. Differences in the 30-day mortality and adverse events between the 2 groups were statistically insignificant. The freedom from all-cause mortality was comparable between the ≤5% oversizing group and the >5% oversizing group (≤5%: 93.3% at 5 years, >5%: 92.3% at 5 years, p=0.957). No significant difference was observed between both groups in the freedom from aortic-related mortality (≤5%: 95.0% at 5 years, >5%: 96.7% at 5 years, p=0.928). However, the competing risk analyses revealed that the cumulative incidence of RTAD was statistically significantly greater in the >5% oversizing group than in the ≤5% oversizing group (≤5%: 1(0.7%) at 5 years, >5%: 6(6.9%) at 5 years, p=0.007). All RTADs occurred within a year of TEVAR. The differences in the cumulative incidences of type I endoleak, distal SINE, and late reintervention were not significant between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The differences in the 5-year all-cause mortality and aortic-related mortality between patients with uncomplicated TBAD who received TEVAR with ≤5% oversizing and those who got TEVAR with >5% oversizing were insignificant. However, oversizing >5% was considerably associated with an increased risk of RTAD within a year of TEVAR, suggesting that oversizing ≤5% may be the appropriate size for TEVAR in patients with uncomplicated TBAD. CLINICAL IMPACT: For patients with uncomplicated TBAD, choosing oversizing ≤5% in endovascular treatment is beneficial to reduce the risk of postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection. This finding provides a basis for stent size selection in endovascular repair. In addition, one year after TEVAR is the main time period for postoperative retrograde type A aortic dissection, and attention should be paid to the management and follow-up of this period.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]