Type B Aortic Dissection Management: A Narrative Review of Guidelines and Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND

Surgical or medical treatment for type B or descending aortic dissections with difficult presentation or stable hemodynamics is debatable. This study aimed to review the type B aortic dissection therapy to assess safety and effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Online databases of PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched for relevant systematic reviews, guidelines, and meta-analysis studies on the management of type B aortic dissection, up to July 2023. The conclusions were qualitatively synthesized.

RESULTS

Best medical therapy (BMT], thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR), and open surgeries (OS) were management approaches. Hemodynamics classify type B aortic dissection as complex or simple. Both examples reveal decreased in-hospital all-cause mortality with TAVR than OS. Guidelines recommend TEVAR for difficult situations and OS if it fails. Complication analyses favour TEVAR, however left subclavian artery coverage without revascularization increases stroke risk. Studies show Type B aortic dissection is simpler than TEVAR and BMT. Acute or subacute presentation did not affect reintervention rates between treatments. TEVAR had a greater early stroke risk than BMT but a decreased long-term aortic-related and all-cause mortality. The best data showed no differences in in-hospital mortality or early re-intervention between regimens. BMT reduced early stroke but increased late all-cause death.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, addressing Type B aortic dissection is complicated, depending on presentation and hemodynamics. TEVAR is best for difficult patients, however BMT and OS also work. TEVAR may reduce in-hospital mortality but increase early stroke risk.