Preoperative proteinuria and clinical outcomes in type B aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 752-758
Author(s):  
Hongwei Yang ◽  
Jianwei Zhou ◽  
Keli Huang ◽  
Tao Yu ◽  
Zuhui Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Dissection ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Type B ◽  
Urine Dipstick ◽  
Aortic Repair

Abstract Background Proteinuria is a marker of poor outcomes in several diseases; however, few studies have been conducted to explore the prognostic value of proteinuria, assessed by urine dipstick test, for clinical outcomes in patients with type B acute aortic dissection (TBAD) undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Methods Consecutive patients with TBAD undergoing TEVAR were enrolled from January 2010 to July 2015. Proteinuria was defined as trace or higher, according to the results of urine dipstick testing. Associations among proteinuria and adverse events were evaluated. Results In total, 671 patients with a mean age of 44±15 years were included in the analysis. Proteinuria was detected in 281 patients (41.9%) before TEVAR. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that C-reactive protein and impaired renal function were independent predictors for proteinuria. During hospitalization, 21 patients died. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with proteinuria (1.5% vs. 5.3%, p=0.005). After a median 3.4 years follow up, the post-TEVAR death rate was 10.4% (85 patients were lost to follow-up). The long-term cumulative mortality was significantly higher in patients with proteinuria (17.2% vs. 8.2%, log-rank=11.36, p=0.001). Multivariate Cox survival modeling indicated that proteinuria was significantly associated with long-term death, after adjustment for potential confounding risk factors (HR=1.92, p=0.012). Conclusions Pre-TEVAR proteinuria was identified as a prognostic marker in patients with TBAD and has potential for application as a convenient and simple risk assessment method before TEVAR.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes and quality of life in patients with acute and subacute type B aortic dissection after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (8) ◽  
pp. 030006052094550
Author(s):  
Yonghua Bi ◽  
Mengfei Yi ◽  
Xinwei Han ◽  
Jianzhuang Ren
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Mental Health ◽  
Aortic Dissection ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Type B ◽  
Type B Aortic Dissection ◽  
Aortic Repair

Objective Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is considered the mini-invasive treatment of choice for patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD). This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) in patients with acute and subacute TBAD after TEVAR. Methods From January 2014 until July 2016, 22 acute patients (Group A) and 18 subacute patients received TEVAR (Group B), and 13 patients were managed non-operatively (Group C). The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 was used to assess QoL preoperatively and after TEVAR. Operative techniques and complications were retrospectively analyzed. Results The role emotion, vitality, and mental health domains scored well preoperatively. Except for role emotion, vitality, and mental health, the remaining domains significantly improved after TEVAR. There was no significant difference in QoL metrics between Groups A and B. In Group C, bodily pain and social functioning domains were improved, and role emotion was decreased, with no improvement in the remaining domains. The 3-year survival rates were 95.5%, 100%, and 85.7% for Groups A, B, and C, respectively. Conclusions TEVAR may be safe and effective in patients with acute and subacute TBAD with similar and favorable clinical and QoL metrics.

scholarly journals What is the optimal timing for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection? Facts, fallacies and the future

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti Jubouri ◽  
Mohamad Bashir ◽  
Sven Zhen Cian Patrick Tan ◽  
Damian Bailey ◽  
Richard Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Dissection ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Therapeutic Window ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Type B ◽  
Type B Aortic Dissection ◽  
Aortic Repair

Background: Uncomplicated Stanford Type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) is characterised by a tear in the aorta distal to the left subclavian artery without ascending aorta and arch involvement. Optimised cardiovascular control (blood pressure and heart rate) is the current gold standard treatment according to current international guidelines. However, emerging evidence indicates that Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) is both safe and effective in the treatment of un-TBAD with improved long-term survival outcomes in combination with optimal medical therapy (OMT) relative to OMT alone. However, the optimal timeframe for intervention is not entirely clarified. Aims: This review critically addresses current state-of-the-art comparing TEVAR with OMT and corresponding clinical outcomes for un-TBAD based on timing of intervention. Methods: We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PUBMED and Scopus in order to collate all research evidence on timing of TEVAR in uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection. Results: TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for un-TBAD in combination with OMT through comparable survival outcomes, improved aortic remodelling, and relatively low periprocedural added risks. Though the timing of intervention remains controversial, it is becoming clear that performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of un-TBAD yields better outcomes compared to earlier and delayed (>90 days) intervention. Conclusions: Further research is required into both short and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in addition to its optimal therapeutic window for un-TBAD. With stronger evidence, TEVAR is likely to be adopted as the gold-standard intervention for un-TBAD with definitive timeframe guidelines.

In Situ Laser Fenestration for Delayed Left Subclavian Artery Revascularization Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Type B Aortic Dissection

2021 ◽  
pp. 153857442110103
Author(s):  
Zhiwei Wang ◽  
Mingxing Li ◽  
Hualong Bai ◽  
Yuanfeng Liu ◽  
Tao Bai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Dissection ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Type B ◽  
Type B Aortic Dissection ◽  
Technical Success Rate ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Invasive Method

In situ laser fenestration (ISLF) is currently used to reconstruct the aortic major branches during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). To our knowledge, there have been no reports on the application of ISLF for delayed revascularization of the LSA previously sealed in TEVAR. This report describes 5 patients who underwent ISLF for delayed LSA revascularization, with a technical success rate of 80%. No endoleakage occurred, and stents remained patent during more than 6-month follow-up. ISLF is an effective, safe and minimally invasive method for delayed revascularization of the LSA following TEVAR for type B aortic dissection (TBAD) when patients are selected appropriately.

scholarly journals Analysis of perioperative outcome and long-term survival rate of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in uncomplicated type B dissection: single-centre experience with 751 patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (6) ◽  
pp. 1090-1096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui-Qiang Gao ◽  
Shang-Dong Xu ◽  
Chang-Wei Ren ◽  
Sheng Yang ◽  
Chao-Liang Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rates ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Type B ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Type B Dissection

Abstract OBJECTIVES To study the perioperative outcomes and long-term survival rates in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B dissection. METHODS A total of 751 patients with uncomplicated type B dissection who underwent TEVAR at our centre between May 2001 and December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. The mean age of all patients (619 males and 132 females) was 52.8 ± 10.9 years. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 170 months (median 70 months). RESULTS Five patients died during the perioperative period (mortality rate 0.7%). Four patients (0.5%) developed retrograde type A dissection. Two patients (0.3%) developed paraplegia and 1 patient developed incomplete paralysis (0.1%). There were no postoperative cerebral infarctions. The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 96.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 95.0–98.0%] and 83.0% (95% CI 77.9–88.4%), respectively. The 5- and 10-year reintervention rates were 4.6% (95% CI 3.0–6.2%) and 7.9% (95% CI 5.3–10.5%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Although the application of TEVAR for patients with uncomplicated dissection is still under debate, many patients who have undergone TEVAR have benefitted substantially from the treatment. Our data showed that TEVAR had low mortality and complication rates both in the short- and long-term follow-up periods. TEVAR may be considered as a first choice for patients with uncomplicated type B dissection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document