Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2024 May 7;104(17):1499-1506. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20240113-00098.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To Compare the effects and safety of lumen reshaping after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for Stanford B type aortic dissection (AD) at different intervention times. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 189 patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection treated with TEVAR at the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College from January 2016 to December 2020.Based on the time from onset to surgery, patients were divided into an early intervention group (≤14 days, n=127) and a delayed intervention group (>14 days, n=62).The diameters of the total aorta, true lumen and false lumen at different times and planes (S1 plane: at the bifurcation of the pulmonary artery; S2 plane: at the lower edge of the left atrium; S3 plane: at the upper edge of the celiac trunk) post-surgery were compared between the two groups, and the rate of change in diameters of true and false lumens across these planes was calculated. The patients were followed until December 1st, 2023, and the median follow-up time was 45(40, 49) months. The postoperative complications and survival of the two groups were compared. Results: The early intervention group comprised 86 men and 41 women, with an average age of (58.3±10.7) years. The delayed intervention group included 41 men and 21 women, with an average age of (58.5±9.2) years. Both groups had an operation success rate of 100%. Six months post-surgery, the early intervention group had an expansion rate of the true lumen diameter at planes S2 and S3 of 40.1%(25.5%, 56.1%) and 5.3%(-2.5%, 15.8%), respectively, which was superior to the delayed intervention group’s 18.5%(10.6%, 39.8%) and 1.0%(-8.2%, 9.6%) (both P<0.05).The early intervention group had a reduction rate of the false lumen diameter at planes S1, S2, and S3 of -56.2%(-61.3%, -48.8%), -70.4%(-81.8%, -56.6%), and -5.4%(-17.4%, 0.1%), respectively, better than the delayed intervention group’s -44.2%(-53.7%, -38.3%), -49.0%(-57.6%, -35.8%), and -3.1%(-6.7%, 1.8%) (all P<0.05).At plane S1, the true lumen diameter of patients in both groups showed an increasing trend over 36 months post-surgery, while the false lumen diameter showed a decreasing trend (both P<0.05).At plane S2, the true lumen diameter of patients in the early intervention group exhibited an increasing trend over 36 months post-surgery, and the false lumen diameter exhibited a decreasing trend (both P<0.05).At plane S3, the total aortic diameter of patients in the delayed intervention group showed a slight increasing trend over 36 months post-surgery (P<0.05).The overall survival time were 45.0 months (95%CI: 42.9-47.1) for patients in the early intervention group and 46.0 months (95%CI: 43.5-48.5) for those in the delayed intervention group, with no statistically significant difference observed (P>0.05).The incidence rates of complications such as aortic rupture, retrograde Type A dissection, new distal endograft dissection, endoleak, paraplegia, and others showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (all P>0.05), with no cases of stent migration or deformation observed. Conclusion: Early intervention for Stanford type B aortic dissection provides a better aortic remodeling outcome than delayed intervention, with similar safety.
PMID:38706057 | DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20240113-00098
