Endovascular versus medical therapy for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection: A qualitative review

Jonathan Merola, Karan Garg, Mark A. Adelman, Thomas S. Maldonado, Neal S. Cayne, Firas F. Mussa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Uncomplicated type B dissections have been traditionally managed with antihypertensive therapy. In the endovascular era, this dictum has been revisited. This review pooled the available studies to compare the outcomes of best medical therapy (BMT) to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B dissections. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies on uncomplicated type B dissections managed with BMT with and without TEVAR. The primary outcome measures were mortality rates at 30 days and at 2 years following intervention. Results: A total of 6 studies included 123 patients who underwent TEVAR/BMT, and 566 patients who had BMT alone. The mortality rates at 30 days (6.5% TEVAR/ BMT vs 4.8% BMT, P = .21) and at 2 years (9.7% vs 11.9%, P = .32) were similar. Renal failure was greater in TEVAR/BMT (15.4% vs 2.1%, P <.01). Rates of surgical reintervention/intervention were similar (17.6% vs 20.1%, P = .31). Conclusion: The TEVAR with BMT does not provide survival benefit compared to BMT alone, 2 years following uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)497-501
Number of pages5
JournalVascular and Endovascular Surgery
Volume47
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dissection
Thorax
Therapeutics
Mortality
Antihypertensive Agents
Renal Insufficiency
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Survival

Keywords

  • aortic dissection
  • endovascular repair
  • uncomplicated

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Endovascular versus medical therapy for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection : A qualitative review. / Merola, Jonathan; Garg, Karan; Adelman, Mark A.; Maldonado, Thomas S.; Cayne, Neal S.; Mussa, Firas F.

In: Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Vol. 47, No. 7, 10.2013, p. 497-501.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Merola, Jonathan ; Garg, Karan ; Adelman, Mark A. ; Maldonado, Thomas S. ; Cayne, Neal S. ; Mussa, Firas F. / Endovascular versus medical therapy for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection : A qualitative review. In: Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2013 ; Vol. 47, No. 7. pp. 497-501.
@article{8b280847f3a643d0a6d6b8d989f9a257,
title = "Endovascular versus medical therapy for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection: A qualitative review",
abstract = "Background: Uncomplicated type B dissections have been traditionally managed with antihypertensive therapy. In the endovascular era, this dictum has been revisited. This review pooled the available studies to compare the outcomes of best medical therapy (BMT) to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B dissections. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies on uncomplicated type B dissections managed with BMT with and without TEVAR. The primary outcome measures were mortality rates at 30 days and at 2 years following intervention. Results: A total of 6 studies included 123 patients who underwent TEVAR/BMT, and 566 patients who had BMT alone. The mortality rates at 30 days (6.5{\%} TEVAR/ BMT vs 4.8{\%} BMT, P = .21) and at 2 years (9.7{\%} vs 11.9{\%}, P = .32) were similar. Renal failure was greater in TEVAR/BMT (15.4{\%} vs 2.1{\%}, P <.01). Rates of surgical reintervention/intervention were similar (17.6{\%} vs 20.1{\%}, P = .31). Conclusion: The TEVAR with BMT does not provide survival benefit compared to BMT alone, 2 years following uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.",
keywords = "aortic dissection, endovascular repair, uncomplicated",
author = "Jonathan Merola and Karan Garg and Adelman, {Mark A.} and Maldonado, {Thomas S.} and Cayne, {Neal S.} and Mussa, {Firas F.}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1177/1538574413495462",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "47",
pages = "497--501",
journal = "Vascular and Endovascular Surgery",
issn = "1538-5744",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endovascular versus medical therapy for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection

T2 - A qualitative review

AU - Merola, Jonathan

AU - Garg, Karan

AU - Adelman, Mark A.

AU - Maldonado, Thomas S.

AU - Cayne, Neal S.

AU - Mussa, Firas F.

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - Background: Uncomplicated type B dissections have been traditionally managed with antihypertensive therapy. In the endovascular era, this dictum has been revisited. This review pooled the available studies to compare the outcomes of best medical therapy (BMT) to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B dissections. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies on uncomplicated type B dissections managed with BMT with and without TEVAR. The primary outcome measures were mortality rates at 30 days and at 2 years following intervention. Results: A total of 6 studies included 123 patients who underwent TEVAR/BMT, and 566 patients who had BMT alone. The mortality rates at 30 days (6.5% TEVAR/ BMT vs 4.8% BMT, P = .21) and at 2 years (9.7% vs 11.9%, P = .32) were similar. Renal failure was greater in TEVAR/BMT (15.4% vs 2.1%, P <.01). Rates of surgical reintervention/intervention were similar (17.6% vs 20.1%, P = .31). Conclusion: The TEVAR with BMT does not provide survival benefit compared to BMT alone, 2 years following uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.

AB - Background: Uncomplicated type B dissections have been traditionally managed with antihypertensive therapy. In the endovascular era, this dictum has been revisited. This review pooled the available studies to compare the outcomes of best medical therapy (BMT) to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B dissections. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies on uncomplicated type B dissections managed with BMT with and without TEVAR. The primary outcome measures were mortality rates at 30 days and at 2 years following intervention. Results: A total of 6 studies included 123 patients who underwent TEVAR/BMT, and 566 patients who had BMT alone. The mortality rates at 30 days (6.5% TEVAR/ BMT vs 4.8% BMT, P = .21) and at 2 years (9.7% vs 11.9%, P = .32) were similar. Renal failure was greater in TEVAR/BMT (15.4% vs 2.1%, P <.01). Rates of surgical reintervention/intervention were similar (17.6% vs 20.1%, P = .31). Conclusion: The TEVAR with BMT does not provide survival benefit compared to BMT alone, 2 years following uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.

KW - aortic dissection

KW - endovascular repair

KW - uncomplicated

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84884551312&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84884551312&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1538574413495462

DO - 10.1177/1538574413495462

M3 - Article

C2 - 23853225

AN - SCOPUS:84884551312

VL - 47

SP - 497

EP - 501

JO - Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

JF - Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

SN - 1538-5744

IS - 7

ER -