Efficacy of intentional undersized thoracic endovascular repair for Stanford type B aortic dissection

Masaaki Naganuma; Yukihiro Hayatsu; Ryoichi Tsuruhara; Hayate Nomura; Naoya Terao; Kazuhiro Yamaya; Masaki Hata

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2024.04.043

Efficacy of intentional undersized thoracic endovascular repair for Stanford type B aortic dissection

J Vasc Surg. 2024 Apr 18:S0741-5214(24)01066-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.04.043. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Masaaki Naganuma¹, Yukihiro Hayatsu², Ryoichi Tsuruhara², Hayate Nomura², Naoya Terao², Kazuhiro Yamaya², Masaki Hata²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Sendai Kosei Hospital, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan. Electronic address: naganuma0110@hotmail.co.jp.
² Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Sendai Kosei Hospital, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.

PMID: 38642671
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2024.04.043

Abstract

Objectives: Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) is widely used for the treatment of aortic dissection. Endograft oversizing is a risk factor for stent graft-induced new entry tears and retrograde type A aortic dissection. However, there is no clear consensus on the optimal graft size selection for Stanford type B acute or subacute aortic dissection (TBAD). Herein, we examined the safety and efficacy of TEVAR using an intentionally undersized endograft to treat TBAD.

Methods: This retrospective chart review study included 82 patients who underwent TEVAR for acute or subacute Stanford TBAD between 2015 and 2022. We measured the true lumen diameter just distal to the subclavian artery and opted for a stent graft of the same diameter. In instances where deformation resulting from false lumen pressure displacement was pronounced, we measured the diameter at the site just proximal to the subclavian artery. Patients' characteristics, procedural, in-hospital, and follow-up data, and aortic remodeling were analyzed. The aortic diameter was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Dunnett's test. Survival and freedom from re-intervention were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results: The follow-up rate was 98.4%. The mean age was 58.3 ± 12.3 years and 76 were men (92.7%). The mean diameters of the stent graft and native proximal landing zone were 30.9 ± 3.2 mm and 30.8 ± 3.0 mm, respectively. The oversize rate of the stent graft in relation to the native proximal aortic diameter was 0.3 ± 4.7%. In-hospital mortality was observed in one patient, retrograde type A aortic dissection in one patient, distal stent graft-induced new entry tear in zero patients, and type 1a endoleak in 22 patients (26.8%). Type 1a endoleaks, characterized by antegrade false lumen blood flow originating from the primary entry, in 12 patients spontaneously disappeared within 1 year of follow-up. According to aortic remodeling, 59 (86.8%) patients achieved complete aortic remodeling at the aortic arch level and 51 (75.0%) at the 8^th thoracic vertebral level. The diameters of the aortic arch and descending aorta were significantly reduced compared with the postoperative measurements (P <0.001). Survival rates were 97.5% and 93.6% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. Freedom from re-intervention was 84.7% and 84.7% at 1 and 3 years, respectively.

Conclusions: Intentionally undersized TEVAR was safe and achieved acceptable aortic remodeling despite a high rate of type 1a endoleaks. A type 1a endoleak was acceptable as it primarily diminished during the mid-term follow-up.

Keywords: Intentional undersized TEVAR; Type 1a endoleak; Type B aortic dissection; aortic remodeling.