A comparison of endovascular repair to medical management for acute vs subacute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections

Objective: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a viable option of treatment for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) due to the potential for inducing favorable aortic remodeling. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of UTBAD treated medically or with TEVAR in either the acute (1 to 14 days) or subacute period (2 weeks to 3 months). Methods: Patients with UTBAD between 2007 and 2019 were identified using the TriNetX Network. The cohort was stratified by treatment type (medical management; TEVAR during the acute period; TEVAR during the subacute period). Outcomes including mortality, endovascular reintervention, and rupture were analyzed after propensity matching. Results: Among 20,376 patients with UTBAD, 18,840 were medically managed (92.5%), 1099 patients were in the acute TEVAR group (5.4%), and 437 patients were in the subacute TEVAR group (2.1%). The acute TEVAR group had higher rates of 30-day and 3-year rupture (4.1% vs 1.5%; P < .001; 9.9% vs 3.6%; P < .001) and 3-year endovascular reintervention (7.6% vs 1.6%; P < .001), similar 30-day mortality (4.4% vs 2.9%; P < .068), and lower 3-year survival compared with medical management (86.6% vs 83.3%; P = .041). The subacute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1), 3-year survival (87.0% vs 88.8%; P = .377) and 30-day and 3-year rupture (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1; 4.6% vs 3.4%; P = .388), with significantly higher rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 7.8%; P = .019) compared with medical management. The acute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (4.2% vs 2.5%; P = .171), rupture (3.0% vs 2.5%; P = .666), significantly higher rates of 3-year rupture (8.7% vs 3.5%; P = .002), and similar rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 10.6%; P = .380) compared with the subacute TEVAR group. There was significantly higher 3-year survival (88.5% vs 84.0%; P = .039) in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group. Conclusions: Our results found lower 3-year survival in the acute TEVAR group compared with the medical management group. There was no 3-year survival benefit found in patients with UTBAD who underwent subacute TEVAR compared with medical management. This suggests the need for further studies looking at the necessity for TEVAR when compared with medical management for UTBAD as it is non-inferior to medical management. Higher rates of 3-year survival and lower rates of 3-year rupture in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group suggest superiority of subacute TEVAR. Further investigations are needed to determine the long-term benefit and optimal timing of TEVAR for acute UTBAD.