Aortic dissection is a catastrophic, life-threatening event. Its management depends on the anatomic location of the intimal tear (type A v B) and the clinical presentation in type B aortic dissection. In this article, the current evidence supporting clinical practice, gaps in knowledge, and the need for more rigorous research and higher-quality studies are reviewed.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary national outcomes of open and endovascular aortic repair for descending thoracic (DTAA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA) are unclear. We evaluated this using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (STS-ACSD).
METHODS: From 07/01/2017 to 6/30/2022, we identified 3522 adults undergoing planned DTAA repair (open 328, endovascular 1895) or TAAA repair (open 870, endovascular 429), after excluding ascending aorta or aortic arch aneurysms (zone 0, 1, or 2), interventions with a proximal extent in zone 0 or zone 1, juxtarenal/infrarenal aortic interventions, hybrid procedures, aortic trauma, and aortic infection.
RESULTS: Most DTAA interventions (85.2%) were endovascular repairs, while most TAAA interventions were open repairs (66.9%). For DTAA, the operative mortality, permanent stroke rate, and rate of spinal cord injury were 4.2%, 3.8%, and 2.4% for endovascular repair and 9.2%, 8.5%, and 4.6% for open repair, respectively (all p<0.05). For TAAA, the operative mortality, permanent stroke rate, and rate of spinal cord injury were 6.5%, 2.1%, and 3.0% for endovascular repair and 11.7%, 6.0%, and 12.2% for open repair (all p<0.05). Increasing annual open TAAA repair volume was associated with lower odds of experiencing the composite of operative mortality, permanent stroke, or spinal cord injury.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on STS-ACSD data, endovascular repair was the predominant approach for treating DTAA, while most patients undergoing TAAA interventions had an open surgical repair. Outcome differences between open and endovascular approaches may be related to patient selection. Increasing center experience with open TAAA repair is associated with improved outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess geometry changes of the ascending aorta after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for descending aortic dissection and identify potential risk factors for diameter and length change.
METHODS: Between 04/2009 and 07/2021, 102 patients were treated for acute descending aortic dissections (Type B and non-A non-B) with TEVAR and were included in this analysis. Computed tomography angiographic scans were transferred to a dedicated imaging software and detailed aortic measurements (including length, diameter and area) were taken in multiplanar reconstruction postoperatively, after six months and annually thereafter.
RESULTS: Sixty-five (58%) patients were male, with a mean age of 66 (±11). Four (4%) patients were diagnosed with a connective tissue disease. Before TEVAR, 79% of our patients were treated with a mean of 1.5 (±1.2) different classes of antihypertensive medications. This number rose to 98% after TEVAR and 2.7 (±1.0) different antihypertensive drugs. There was no significant change in length, diameter, cross-sectional area, or volume of the ascending aorta during the follow-up of 3 years after TEVAR. Body height was a negative predictor for mean ascending aortic diameter (p-value = -0.013; B = -8.890) and mean aortic diameter at the level of the brachiocephalic trunk (p-value = 0.039; B = -14.763).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests no significant changes in the ascending aorta following TEVAR of the descending thoracic aorta during mid-term follow-up when under stringent blood pressure medication. Additionally, we did not find any modifiable risk factors for geometry parameter increase.

BACKGROUND: Aortic diameter growth in type B aortic dissection (TBAD) is associated with progressive aortic dilation, resulting in increased mortality in patients with both de novo TBAD (dnTBAD) and residual dissection after type A dissection repair (rTAAD). Preemptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair may improve mortality in patients with TBAD, although it is unclear which patients may benefit most from early intervention. In vivo hemodynamic assessment using four-dimensional (4D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used to characterize TBAD patients with growing aortas. In this longitudinal study, we investigated whether changes over time in 4D flow derived true and false lumen (TL, FL) hemodynamic parameters correlate with aortic growth rate which is a marker of increased risk.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified TBAD patients with baseline and follow-up 4D flow MRI at least 120 days apart. Patients with TBAD intervention before baseline or between scans were excluded. 4D flow MRI data analysis included segmentation of the TL and FL, followed by voxel-wise calculation of TL and FL total kinetic energy (KE), maximum velocity (MV), mean forward flow (FF), and mean reverse flow (RF). Changes over time (Δ) were calculated for all hemodynamic parameters. Maximal diameter in the descending aorta was measured from MR angiogram images acquired at the time of 4D flow. Aortic growth rate was defined as the change in diameter divided by baseline diameter and standardized to scan interval.
RESULTS: 32 patients met inclusion criteria (age: 56.9±14.1 years, Female: 13, n=19 rTAAD, n=13 dnTBAD). Mean follow up time was 538 days (range: 135-1689). Baseline aortic diameter did not correlate with growth rate. In the entire cohort, Δ FL MV (rho=0.37, p=.04) and Δ FL RF (rho=0.45, p=0.01) correlated with growth rate. In rTAAD only, Δ FL MV (rho=0.48, p=.04) and Δ FL RF (rho=0.51, p=0.03) correlated with growth rate, while in dnTBAD only, Δ TL KE (rho=0.63, p=.02) and Δ TL MV (rho=0.69, p=.01) correlated with growth rate.
CONCLUSIONS: 4D flow derived longitudinal hemodynamic changes correlate with aortic growth rate in TBAD and may provide additional prognostic value for risk stratification. 4D flow MRI could be integrated into existing imaging protocols to allow for identification of TBAD patients who would benefit from preemptive surgical or endovascular intervention.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze early and midterm results of custom-made proximal scallop and fenestrated stent-grafts for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with proximal landing zone (PLZ) in the aortic arch.
METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with the custom made proximal scalloped and fenestrated Relay stent grafts (Terumo Aortic Bolton Medical Inc., Sunrise, USA) in ten Italian centers between January 2014 and December 2022 were included. The primary endpoints were technical success, incidence of intraoperative major adverse events (MAEs), deployment accuracy, and rate of early neurological complications, endoleaks (Els) and retrograde aortic dissection.
RESULTS: During the study period, 49 patients received TEVAR with Relay custom-made endograft in Italy were enrolled. The median patient age was 70.1 years (interquartile range, 23-86 years) and 65.3% were male. The indication for treatment was atherosclerotic aneurysms in 59.2% of cases and penetrating aortic ulcer in 22.4%. The endograft configuration was proximal fenestration in 55.1% and scallop in 44.9%. The PLZ was zone 0 in 25 cases (51%), zone 1 in 14 cases (28.6%), and zone 2 in 10 cases (20.4%). The supra-aortic debranching procedures were 38 (77.5%). Technical success was 97.9% (48/49) due to one case (2.0%) of inaccurate deployment. Intraoperatively, one (2.0%) type Ia and one (2.0%) type III Els were detected. There were no cases of in-hospital mortality, MAEs and retrograde dissection. Three (6.1%) minor strokes (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score≤4) were observed. At a mean follow-up time of 36.3 + 21.3 months the rate of type I-III Els and reintervention was 4.1%, respectively. Four patients (8.2%) died during the follow-up period, one (2.1%) from abdominal aortic rupture and three (6.1%) for non-aortic causes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our early and midterm outcomes suggest that scalloped and fenestrated TEVAR may provide an acceptable alternative treatment option for aortic arch pathologies. Large-scale studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of this technique.

The incidence of T4b esophageal cancer with aortic invasion but without distant metastasis is estimated to be between 3.8% and 4.6% of all esophageal cancer cases. Development of an aortoesophageal fistula in such cases is a rare but not unlikely event, leading to catastrophic consequences. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the importance of aortic stenting (Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair-TEVAR) and its optimal timing in the management of locally advanced esophageal cancer. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was undertaken to identify relevant studies published up to March 2024. An individual patient data analysis was performed by forming a patient cohort with elective and salvage TEVAR subgroups, depending on the timing of the stenting. The study pool consisted of 25 studies incorporating 101 cases of locally advanced esophageal cancer, with a median age of 64 years (range 45-87 years). Of them, 50 patients underwent elective TEVAR compared with 51 patients receiving TEVAR in an acute salvage setting. Elective or prophylactic TEVAR was found to significantly increase esophageal resection rates (65.6% vs. 16.7% in the salvage subgroup, P < 0.001), concurrently reducing complication rates (8.3% vs. 36.1%, P < 0.001). Overall survival was also prolonged in the elective subgroup (8.3 vs. 4 months, P = 0.001), with elective stenting being the only independent predictor of improved survival. In conclusion, management with aortic stenting in high-risk patients may reduce the catastrophic consequences of massive bleeding, minimize complications, and enhance survival rates.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of urgency on early and midterm outcomes of the Candy-Plug (CP) technique for distal false lumen (FL) occlusion in thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic dissection.
METHODS: The CP registry was reviewed, and patients were categorized into elective and urgent/emergent groups for analysis. End points included technical success, clinical success, early (30-day) computed tomography angiography findings, early (30-day) mortality, adverse events, and aortic remodeling in patients with available computed tomography angiography follow-up and reintervention.
RESULTS: A total of 155 patients received a custom-made CP, of whom 32 patients (44% male, mean age 61 ± 9 years) were treated urgently and 123 patients (63% male, mean age 62 ± 11 years) electively. The primary CP rate was higher in the urgent group (28/32, 88%, in the urgent group vs 96/123, 78%, in the elective group, P = .051). The mean contrast volume was higher in the urgent group (157 ± 56 mL in the urgent group vs 130 ± 71 mL in the elective group, P = .017). Technical success was achieved in all patients in both groups. Clinical success was achieved in 25 of 32 (78%) patients in the urgent group vs 113 and 123 (92%) in the elective group (P = .159). The early mortality rate was 13% (4 of 32 patients) in the urgent group vs 1% (1 of 123 patients) in the elective group (P = .120). There was no statistically significant difference regarding the early adverse events between the urgent and elective CP groups. Early aortic-related reinterventions were required in 6 of 32 (19%) patients in the urgent group vs 6 of 123 (5%) in the elective group (P = .094). Thoracic aortic aneurysm sac regression was lower in the urgent group (5/28, 18%, in the urgent group vs 63/114, 55%, in the elective group, P = .001). Stable thoracic aortic aneurysm sac was higher in the urgent group (22/28, 79%, in the urgent group vs 47/114, 41%, in the elective group, P = .000). An increase in thoracic aortic aneurysm sac occurred in 1 of 28 (4%) patients in the urgent group vs 4 of 114 (4%) patients in the elective group (P = .096).
CONCLUSIONS: The urgent use of the CP technique for distal FL occlusion in aortic dissection was feasible and effective. The decrease in aortic FL sac diameter may be affected by the urgent use of CP due to limited sizing availability. However, it achieved a high rate of aortic remodeling.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate and address the question surrounding the determination of the optimal endograft length of coverage during TEVAR for type B aortic dissection (TBAD), with a particular emphasis on the distal landing zone (DLZ).
METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were used.
METHODS: The PRISMA-ScR statement was followed.
RESULTS: Several variables can contribute to the length of coverage during TEVAR in TBAD patient. Baseline patient\'s characteristics, TBAD-related features, the type of endoprosthesis, and postoperative graft behaviour may contribute to the choice of coverage.
CONCLUSIONS: No robust data have been published regarding the optimal length of TEVAR. Therefore, reporting the percentage of covered aorta and improving computational studies should be valorised to improve postoperative outcomes.

Introduction: A residual false lumen after treatment for Aortic Dissection type A (AD) has been associated with early complications, such as A malperfusion or rupture and mid-term or delayed complications, such as aneurysm formation or dissection expansion. Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) is considered an effective solution by several surgical teams to prevent future complications. In this systematic review, all published data regarding the implementation of TEVAR after previous treatment for AD were collected in order to investigate indications, methods, clinical outcomes and aortic remodeling in these patients. Methods: The aim of this study was to investigate the indications, the methods and the efficacy of TEVAR usage after surgical treatment of AD. Data for this study were collected from four widely used medical databases (MEDLINE, SCIENCE DIRECT, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, OVID). All the results for each database were recorded and were analyzed with a systematic method. Techniques and clinical outcomes were investigated. Aortic remodeling was evaluated based on the following parameters in these studies: aortic diameter, true lumen diameter, false lumen diameter, false lumen thrombosis and false lumen patency. Results: The results obtained from the search among all databases comprised 1410 articles and of these articles 9 were included in the review. The majority of the studies were retrospective (seven out of nine studies), while no study was randomized. The total number of patients was 157 and 133 of them (84.7% of patients) were treated with TEVAR in zone 3 without extension below the diaphragm intraoperatively. Among 142 patients, the calculated mortality rate was 12.7% (18 of 142 patients), with 2.8% (4 of 142 patients) presenting with stroke. The percentage of patients with total or partial thrombosis combined was 65.9% (62 patients in a population of 92). The reintervention rate was 18.7%. Conclusions: TEVAR after AD surgery is an approach usually chosen in clinical practice, but the criteria of its usage are uncertain. This method is safe and enhances aortic remodeling with an acceptable reintervention rate. Definite guidelines in this field should be created in order to delineate whether TEVAR after AD surgery is beneficial as a preventive measure to aorta-related complications and to decide under which criteria this approach should be chosen.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) vary depending on thoracic aortic pathologies, comorbidities. This study presents our comprehensive endovascular experience, focusing on exploring the outcome in long term follow-up.
METHODS: From 2006 to 2018, we conducted TEVAR on 97 patients presenting with various aortic pathologies. This retrospective cohort study was designed primarily to assess graft durability and secondarily to evaluate mortality causes, complications, reinterventions, and the impact of comorbidities on survival using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.
RESULTS: The most common indication was thoracic aortic aneurysm (n = 52). Ten patients had aortic arch variations and anomalies, and the bovine arch was observed in eight patients. Endoleaks were the main complications encountered, and 10 of 15 endoleaks were type I endoleaks. There were 18 reinterventions; the most of which was TEVAR (n = 5). The overall mortality was 20 patients, with TEVAR-related causes accounting for 12 of these deaths, including intracranial bleeding in three patients. Multivariant Cox regression revealed chronic renal diseases (OR = 11.73; 95% CI: 2.04-67.2; p = 0.006), previous cardiac operation (OR = 14.26; 95% CI: 1.59-127.36; p = 0.01), and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (OR = 7.82; 95% CI: 1.43-42.78; p = 0.001) to be independent risk factors for 10-year survival. There was no significant difference in the survival curves of the various aortic pathologies. In the follow-up period, two non-symptomatic intragraft thromboses and one graft infection were found.
CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities can increase the risk of TEVAR-related mortality without significantly impacting endoleak rates. TEVAR is effective for severe aortic pathologies, though long-term graft durability may be compromised by its thrombosis and infection.