Comparative Outcome Analysis of N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Embolization of the False Lumen Versus Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Aortic Dissection

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of N-butyl cyanoacrylate (NBCA) embolization for the treatment of aortic dissection. Materials and MethodsIn this single-center retrospective study conducted from February 2003 to June 2019, NBCA embolization of an aortic false lumen was attempted in 12 patients (median age, 59 y; range, 41–68 y) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was performed in 53 patients (median age, 59 y; range, 37–70 y) for aortic dissection with one or more indications of persisting pain, malperfusion, rupture or impending rupture, maximal aortic diameter ≥ 55 mm, and/or rapid aortic enlargement. The main exclusion criterion for embolization was the presence of fast blood flow in the aortic false lumen on aortography. The efficacy of NBCA embolization and TEVAR was compared by evaluating technical and clinical outcomes, repeat intervention–free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). ResultsTechnical success was achieved in 11 of the 12 patients treated with NBCA embolization (91.7%), and clinical success was achieved in 9 of these 11 (81.8%). No significant difference was found between embolization and TEVAR in clinical success rates (embolization, 81.8%; TEVAR, 84.9%; P = .409) or procedure-related complications (embolization, 1 patient [8.3%]; TEVAR, 4 patients [7.5%]; P = .701). In addition, embolization showed comparable 5-y RFS (embolization, 82.5% ± 9.3; TEVAR, 85.5% ± 4.8; P = .641) and 5-y OS (embolization, 100%; TEVAR, 95.4% ± 3.2; P = .744) rates to TEVAR. ConclusionsNBCA embolization of the false lumen in aortic dissection seems to be a safe and effective treatment modality for the closure of false lumen in selected patients.