Risk profile analysis of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair: Laboratory and radiographic predictors.

BACKGROUND

There is emerging evidence to support pre-emptive thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) intervention for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (unTBAD). Pre-emptive intervention would be particularly beneficial in patients that have a higher baseline risk of progressing to complicated TBAD (coTBAD). There remain debate on the optimal clinical, laboratory, morphological, and radiological parameters, which would identify the highest-risk patients that would benefit most from pre-emptive TEVAR.

AIM

This review summarizes evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was carried out on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and Scopus to collate all research evidence on the clinical, laboratory, and morphological parameters that increase the risk profiles of unTBAD patients RESULTS: At present, there are no clear clinical guidelines using risk-stratification to inform the selection of unTBAD patients for TEVAR. However, there are noticeable literature trends that can assist with the identification of the most at-risk unTBAD patients. Patients are at particular risk when they have refractory pain and/or hypertension, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), larger aortic diameter, and larger entry tears. These risks should be considered alongside factors that increase the procedural risk of TEVAR to create a well-balanced approach. Advances in biomarkers and imaging are likely to identify more pertinent parameters in the future to optimize the development of balanced, risk-stratified treatment protocols.

CONCLUSION

There are a variety of risk profiling parameters that can be used to identify the high-risk unTBAD patient, with novel biomarkers and imaging parameters emerging. Longer-term evidence verifying these parameters would be ideal. Further randomized controlled trials and multicentre registry analyses are also warranted to guide risk-stratified selection protocols.