Cargando…

Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Currently, the optimal management strategy for chronic type B aortic dissections (CBAD) is unknown. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature to compare results of open surgical repair (OSR), standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or branched and fenestrated TEVA...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kamman, Arnoud V., de Beaufort, Hector W. L., van Bogerijen, Guido H. W., Nauta, Foeke J. H., Heijmen, Robin H., Moll, Frans L., van Herwaarden, Joost A., Trimarchi, Santi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856408/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27144723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154930
_version_ 1782430505255305216
author Kamman, Arnoud V.
de Beaufort, Hector W. L.
van Bogerijen, Guido H. W.
Nauta, Foeke J. H.
Heijmen, Robin H.
Moll, Frans L.
van Herwaarden, Joost A.
Trimarchi, Santi
author_facet Kamman, Arnoud V.
de Beaufort, Hector W. L.
van Bogerijen, Guido H. W.
Nauta, Foeke J. H.
Heijmen, Robin H.
Moll, Frans L.
van Herwaarden, Joost A.
Trimarchi, Santi
author_sort Kamman, Arnoud V.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Currently, the optimal management strategy for chronic type B aortic dissections (CBAD) is unknown. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature to compare results of open surgical repair (OSR), standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or branched and fenestrated TEVAR (BEVAR/FEVAR) for CBAD. METHODS: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for eligible studies between January 2000 and October 2015. Studies describing outcomes of OSR, TEVAR, B/FEVAR, or all, for CBAD patients initially treated with medical therapy, were included. Primary endpoints were early mortality, and one-year and five-year survival. Secondary endpoints included occurrence of complications. Furthermore, a Time until Treatment Equipoise (TUTE) graph was constructed. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles were selected for systematic review. A total of 1081 OSR patients, 1397 TEVAR patients and 61 B/FEVAR patients were identified. Early mortality ranged from 5.6% to 21.0% for OSR, 0.0% to 13.7% for TEVAR, and 0.0% to 9.7% for B/FEVAR. For OSR, one-year and five-year survival ranged 72.0%-92.0% and 53.0%-86.7%, respectively. For TEVAR, one-year survival was 82.9%-100.0% and five-year survival 70.0%-88.9%. For B/FEVAR only one-year survival was available, ranging between 76.4% and 100.0%. Most common postoperative complications included stroke (OSR 0.0%-13.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-11.8%), spinal cord ischemia (OSR 0.0%-16.4%, TEVAR 0.0%-12.5%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-12.9%) and acute renal failure (OSR 0.0%-33.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-34.4%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-3.2%). Most common long-term complications after OSR included aneurysm formation (5.8%-20.0%) and new type A dissection (1.7–2.2%). Early complications after TEVAR included retrograde dissection (0.0%-7.1%), malperfusion (1.3%–9.4%), cardiac complications (0.0%–5.9%) and rupture (0.5%–5.0%). Most common long-term complications after TEVAR were rupture (0.5%–7.1%), endoleaks (0.0%–15.8%) and cardiac complications (5.9%-7.1%). No short-term aortic rupture or malperfusion was observed after B/FEVAR. Long-term complications included malperfusion (6.5%) and endoleaks (0.0%-66.7%). Reintervention rates after OSR, TEVAR and B/FEVAR were 5.8%-29.0%, 4.3%-47.4% and 0.0%-53.3%, respectively. TUTE for OSR was 2.7 years, for TEVAR 9.9 months and for B/FEVAR 10.3 months. CONCLUSION: We found a limited early survival benefit of standard TEVAR over OSR for CBAD. Complication rates after TEVAR are higher, but complications after OSR are usually more serious. Initial experiences with B/FEVAR show its feasibility, but long-term results are needed to compare it to OSR and standard TEVAR. We conclude that optimal treatment of CBAD remains debatable and merits a patient specific decision. TUTE seems a feasible and useful tool to better understand management outcomes of CBAD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4856408
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48564082016-05-06 Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review Kamman, Arnoud V. de Beaufort, Hector W. L. van Bogerijen, Guido H. W. Nauta, Foeke J. H. Heijmen, Robin H. Moll, Frans L. van Herwaarden, Joost A. Trimarchi, Santi PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Currently, the optimal management strategy for chronic type B aortic dissections (CBAD) is unknown. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature to compare results of open surgical repair (OSR), standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or branched and fenestrated TEVAR (BEVAR/FEVAR) for CBAD. METHODS: EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for eligible studies between January 2000 and October 2015. Studies describing outcomes of OSR, TEVAR, B/FEVAR, or all, for CBAD patients initially treated with medical therapy, were included. Primary endpoints were early mortality, and one-year and five-year survival. Secondary endpoints included occurrence of complications. Furthermore, a Time until Treatment Equipoise (TUTE) graph was constructed. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles were selected for systematic review. A total of 1081 OSR patients, 1397 TEVAR patients and 61 B/FEVAR patients were identified. Early mortality ranged from 5.6% to 21.0% for OSR, 0.0% to 13.7% for TEVAR, and 0.0% to 9.7% for B/FEVAR. For OSR, one-year and five-year survival ranged 72.0%-92.0% and 53.0%-86.7%, respectively. For TEVAR, one-year survival was 82.9%-100.0% and five-year survival 70.0%-88.9%. For B/FEVAR only one-year survival was available, ranging between 76.4% and 100.0%. Most common postoperative complications included stroke (OSR 0.0%-13.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-11.8%), spinal cord ischemia (OSR 0.0%-16.4%, TEVAR 0.0%-12.5%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-12.9%) and acute renal failure (OSR 0.0%-33.3%, TEVAR 0.0%-34.4%, B/FEVAR 0.0%-3.2%). Most common long-term complications after OSR included aneurysm formation (5.8%-20.0%) and new type A dissection (1.7–2.2%). Early complications after TEVAR included retrograde dissection (0.0%-7.1%), malperfusion (1.3%–9.4%), cardiac complications (0.0%–5.9%) and rupture (0.5%–5.0%). Most common long-term complications after TEVAR were rupture (0.5%–7.1%), endoleaks (0.0%–15.8%) and cardiac complications (5.9%-7.1%). No short-term aortic rupture or malperfusion was observed after B/FEVAR. Long-term complications included malperfusion (6.5%) and endoleaks (0.0%-66.7%). Reintervention rates after OSR, TEVAR and B/FEVAR were 5.8%-29.0%, 4.3%-47.4% and 0.0%-53.3%, respectively. TUTE for OSR was 2.7 years, for TEVAR 9.9 months and for B/FEVAR 10.3 months. CONCLUSION: We found a limited early survival benefit of standard TEVAR over OSR for CBAD. Complication rates after TEVAR are higher, but complications after OSR are usually more serious. Initial experiences with B/FEVAR show its feasibility, but long-term results are needed to compare it to OSR and standard TEVAR. We conclude that optimal treatment of CBAD remains debatable and merits a patient specific decision. TUTE seems a feasible and useful tool to better understand management outcomes of CBAD. Public Library of Science 2016-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4856408/ /pubmed/27144723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154930 Text en © 2016 Kamman et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kamman, Arnoud V.
de Beaufort, Hector W. L.
van Bogerijen, Guido H. W.
Nauta, Foeke J. H.
Heijmen, Robin H.
Moll, Frans L.
van Herwaarden, Joost A.
Trimarchi, Santi
Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review
title Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review
title_full Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review
title_short Contemporary Management Strategies for Chronic Type B Aortic Dissections: A Systematic Review
title_sort contemporary management strategies for chronic type b aortic dissections: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856408/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27144723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154930
work_keys_str_mv AT kammanarnoudv contemporarymanagementstrategiesforchronictypebaorticdissectionsasystematicreview
AT debeauforthectorwl contemporarymanagementstrategiesforchronictypebaorticdissectionsasystematicreview
AT vanbogerijenguidohw contemporarymanagementstrategiesforchronictypebaorticdissectionsasystematicreview
AT nautafoekejh contemporarymanagementstrategiesforchronictypebaorticdissectionsasystematicreview
AT heijmenrobinh contemporarymanagementstrategiesforchronictypebaorticdissectionsasystematicreview
AT mollfransl contemporarymanagementstrategiesforchronictypebaorticdissectionsasystematicreview
AT vanherwaardenjoosta contemporarymanagementstrategiesforchronictypebaorticdissectionsasystematicreview
AT trimarchisanti contemporarymanagementstrategiesforchronictypebaorticdissectionsasystematicreview