Comparison of Outcomes and Complications Among Patients with Different Indications of Acute/Subacute Complicated Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection Treated by TEVAR: Data from the JaPanese REtrospective multicenter stuDy of ThoracIc Endovascular Aortic Repair for Complicated Type B Aortic Dissection (J-Predictive Study)

Purpose: To investigate the relationships between indications for thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute/subacute complicated Stanford type B aortic dissection and clinical outcomes, and complications specific to thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Material and methods: The J-predictive study retrospectively collected data of patients treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair for complicated Stanford type B aortic dissection at 20 institutions from January 2012 to March 2017. From the database, those treated for acute/subacute complicated Stanford type B aortic dissection were extracted (n = 118; 96 men; average age, 66.1 years; standard deviation, ± 13) and classified into groups 1, 2, and 3 according to thoracic endovascular aortic repair indications (rupture, superior mesenteric artery malperfusion, and renal or lower extremity malperfusion, respectively). Primary and secondary measures were mortality (overall and aortic-related) and complications related to thoracic endovascular aortic repair, respectively. For each outcome, the risks of being in groups 1 and 2 were statistically compared with that of being in group 3 as a control using Fisher’s exact test. Results: Mortality rate (odds ratio, 5.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33–20.53) and prevalence of paraparesis/paraplegia (odds ratio, 30.46; confidence interval, 1.71–541.77) were higher in group 1 than in group 3. Compared to group 3, group 2 showed no statistically significant differences in mortality or complications related to thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Conclusions: Rupture as an indication for thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection was more likely to result in worse mortality and high prevalence of spinal cord ischemia. Level of Evidence: Level 4, Case series.