Thoracic endovascular repair versus medical management for acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.

Abstract

Current treatment options and outcomes for acute uncomplicated thoracic Type-B aortic dissection (TBAD) remain unclear between medical management (MED) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). In this study we aim to compare both strategies in terms of all-cause mortality, aortic dilation, and aortic rupture. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried from January 1990 through March 2017. Only studies comparing TEVAR to MED for acute uncomplicated TBAD were included. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes across studies. Study outcomes included short (1 month), intermediate (1 year), and mid-term (2-5 year) all-cause mortality. Additional outcomes included aortic dilation and rupture at 1 year. A total of 1,960 patients (64.3 years; 75.8% male) were included from six studies (one prospective and five retrospective). No difference was observed in short-term (odd ratio [OR] 0.73 with 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47 to 1.12, P = 0.15), intermediate (OR 0.99 with 95% CI 0.56 to 1.73, P = 0.96), or mid-term all-cause mortality (OR 1.12 with 95% CI 0.54 to 2.32, P = 0.75). No difference in aortic dilation with either modality was noted at 1-year (OR 1.11 with 95% CI 0.76 to 1.64, P = 0.59). TEVAR was associated with a significantly lower 1-year risk of aortic rupture (OR 2.49 with 95% CI 1.23 to 5.06, P = 0.01). There were no short, intermediate, or mid-term differences in mortality between TEVAR or MED in patients with acute uncomplicated TBAD. Although the dilation rate was similar between both groups, TEVAR was associated with lower likelihood of aortic rupture at 1 year.