Background: Uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) has been managed conservatively with medical therapy in order to control the heart rate and blood pressure to limit disease progression, in addition to radiological follow-up. However, several trials and observational studies have investigated the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in un-TBAD and suggested that TEVAR provides a survival benefit over medical therapy. Outcomes of TEVAR have also been linked with the timing of intervention. Aims: The scope of this review is to collate and summarise all the evidence in the literature on the mid- and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in un-TBAD, confirming its superiority. We also aimed to investigate the relationship between timing of TEVAR intervention and results. Methods: We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE in order to collate and summarise all research evidence on the mid- and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in un-TBAD, as well as its relationship with intervention timing. Results: TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective tool in un-TBAD, offering superior mid- and long-term outcomes including all-cause and aorta-related mortality, aortic-specific adverse events, aortic remodelling, and need for reintervention. Additionally, performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of dissection seems to yield optimal results. Conclusion: The evidence demonstrating a survival advantage in favour TEVAR over medical therapy in un-TBAD means that with further research, particular trials and observational studies, TEVAR could become the gold-standard treatment option for un-TBAD patients.

Background The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) remains controversial. There is a lack of consensus over whether pre-emptive TEVAR should be carried out in patients with un-TBAD at risk of progression to complicated TBAD. We present a review of current evidence and seek to suggest criteria where endovascular intervention in un-TBAD may prove beneficial relative to pharmacotherapy alone. Methods and Materials PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched using terms including: type B aortic dissection, risk factors, medical therapy, TEVAR, false lumen expansion, and mortality. Papers were selected based on title and abstract. Results Optimal medical therapy remains the mainstay treatment for patients with un-TBAD, however patients with un-TBAD present with varying degrees of disease progression risk. Factors such as age, aortic morphology, history of connective tissue disorders, false lumen thrombosis, and aortic branch involvement may potentiate progression from un-TBAD to complicated TBAD. Short- and long-term outcomes associated with TEVAR for TBAD remain promising. Conclusion Pre-emptive TEVAR may be beneficial in patients with un-TBAD presenting with the above factors, however further prospective research into the optimal timing for TEVAR in un-TBAD is required.

Background: Uncomplicated Stanford Type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) is characterised by a tear in the aorta distal to the left subclavian artery without ascending aorta and arch involvement. Optimised cardiovascular control (blood pressure and heart rate) is the current gold standard treatment according to current international guidelines. However, emerging evidence indicates that Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) is both safe and effective in the treatment of un-TBAD with improved long-term survival outcomes in combination with optimal medical therapy (OMT) relative to OMT alone. However, the optimal timeframe for intervention is not entirely clarified. Aims: This review critically addresses current state-of-the-art comparing TEVAR with OMT and corresponding clinical outcomes for un-TBAD based on timing of intervention. Methods: We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PUBMED and Scopus in order to collate all research evidence on timing of TEVAR in uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection. Results: TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for un-TBAD in combination with OMT through comparable survival outcomes, improved aortic remodelling, and relatively low periprocedural added risks. Though the timing of intervention remains controversial, it is becoming clear that performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of un-TBAD yields better outcomes compared to earlier and delayed (>90 days) intervention. Conclusions: Further research is required into both short and long-term outcomes of TEVAR in addition to its optimal therapeutic window for un-TBAD. With stronger evidence, TEVAR is likely to be adopted as the gold-standard intervention for un-TBAD with definitive timeframe guidelines.

Background Porcine aortic roots (PAR) have been reported in the literature with acceptable short and long-term outcomes for the treatment of aortic root aneurysms. However, their efficacy in type A aortic dissection (TAAD) is yet to be defined. Methods Using data from a locally collated aortic dissection registry, we compared the outcomes in patients undergoing aortic root replacement for TAAD using either of two surgical options: i) PAR or ii) composite valve grafts (CVG). A retrospective analysis was conducted for all procedures in the period 2005-2018. Results A total of 252 patients underwent procedures for TAAD in the time period. Sixty-five patients had aortic root replacements (PAR n=30, CVG n=35). Between group comparisons identified a younger CVG group (50.5 vs 64.5, p<0.05) although all other covariates were comparable. Operative parameters were comparable between the two groups. The use of PAR did not significantly impact operative mortality (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.22-3.61, p=0.992), stroke (OR 2.91, 0.25 – 34.09, p=0.395), re-operation (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.22 – 3.62, p=0.882) or length of stay (coef 2.33, -8.23 – 12.90, p=0.659) compared to CVG. Five-year survival was similar between both groups (PAR 59% vs CVG 69%, p=0.153) and re-operation was negligible. Echocardiography revealed significantly lower aortic valve gradients in the PAR group (8.69 vs 15.45 mmHg, p<0.0001), and smaller left ventricular dimensions both at 6 weeks and 1 year follow up (p<0.05). Conclusions This study highlights the comparable short and mid-term outcomes of PAR in cases of TAAD, in comparison to established therapy.