Mid- and long-term results of open repair for chronic type B aortic dissection in endovascular era

Abstract

AbstractMedical management is the standard treatment of chronic type B aortic dissection (CTBAD). However, the roles of open surgical repair (OSR) and thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) in patients with CTBAD remain controversial. Thus, this study aimed to assess and compare the mid- and long-term clinical outcomes of OSR via left thoracotomy with that of TEVAR for CTBAD. The data of 85 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for CTBAD from April 2007 to May 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: Group G, which included patients who underwent OSR, and Group E, which included patients who underwent TEVAR. Groups G and E comprised 33 and 52 patients, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography (CT) studies were retrospectively analyzed for the maximum diameter. The mean duration of the follow-up period was 5.8 years. Operative mortality did not occur. There was no difference in complications, such as stroke (G: 2 vs. E: 0, p = 0.30), paraplegia (G: 1 vs. E: 1, p = 0.66), and respiratory failure (G: 2, vs. E: 0, p = 0.30). The difference in preoperative factors was observed, including the intervals between onset and operation (G; 4.9 years vs. E; 1.9 years, p < 0.01), maximum diameter in preoperative CT (G; 59.0 mm vs. E; 50.5 mm, p < 0.001), and maximum false lumen diameter (G; 35.5 mm vs. E; 29.0 mm, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the mid- and long-term survival rates (p = 0.49), aorta-related deaths (p = 0.33), and thoracic re-intervention rates (p = 0.34). Postoperative adverse events occurred in Group E: four cases of retrospective type A aortic dissection, two cases of aorto-bronchial fistula, and one case of aorto-esophagus fistula. Aorta-related death and re-intervention rates crossed over in both groups after seven years postoperatively. Although endovascular repair of CTBAD is less invasive, the rate of freedom from re-intervention was unsatisfactory. Some fatal complications were observed in the endovascular group, and the mid- and long-term outcomes were reversed compared with those in the OSR group. Although OSR is an invasive procedure, it could be performed safely without perioperative complications. OSR has more feasible mid- and long-term outcomes.