Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026

Novel and Innovative Hybrid Technique for Type A Aortic Dissection
Published on: March 28, 2025
Endovascular versus medical therapy for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection: a qualitative review
Jonathan Merola1, Karan Garg, Mark A Adelman
11Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Background:
Uncomplicated type B dissections have been traditionally managed with antihypertensive therapy. In the endovascular era, this dictum has been revisited. This review pooled the available studies to compare the outcomes of best medical therapy (BMT) to thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B dissections.
Methods:
A literature search was performed to identify studies on uncomplicated type B dissections managed with BMT with and without TEVAR. The primary outcome measures were mortality rates at 30 days and at 2 years following intervention.
Results:
A total of 6 studies included 123 patients who underwent TEVAR/BMT, and 566 patients who had BMT alone. The mortality rates at 30 days (6.5% TEVAR/BMT vs 4.8% BMT, P = .21) and at 2 years (9.7% vs 11.9%, P = .32) were similar. Renal failure was greater in TEVAR/BMT (15.4% vs 2.1%, P < .01). Rates of surgical reintervention/intervention were similar (17.6% vs 20.1%, P = .31).
Conclusion:
The TEVAR with BMT does not provide survival benefit compared to BMT alone, 2 years following uncomplicated type B aortic dissection.
Related Concept Videos
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care