Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 4, 2026

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
Published on: May 21, 2017
Outcomes of Patients with Acute Type B Aortic Dissection and High-Risk Features
Jonathan R Krebs1, Amanda C Filiberto1, Brian Fazzone1
1Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Insights
High-risk features are common in acute type B aortic dissections (TBAD). Patients with high-risk TBAD managed with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) showed improved outcomes compared to those with complicated TBAD undergoing TEVAR.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Vascular Surgery
- Thoracic Surgery
Background:
- Contemporary guidelines define complicated, uncomplicated, and high-risk acute type B aortic dissections (TBAD).
- Few studies have evaluated outcomes specifically for high-risk TBAD.
- This study assesses outcomes for high-risk TBAD managed with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) versus best medical management.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare demographics, clinical presentation, and outcomes of high-risk TBAD patients treated with TEVAR or medical management.
- To compare these outcomes against patients with complicated and uncomplicated TBAD.
- To evaluate the impact of high-risk features on TBAD management and patient outcomes.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 159 acute TBAD patients from October 2011 to March 2020.
- Classification into high-risk, complicated (C-TBAD), and uncomplicated TBAD groups based on STS/SVS 2020 guidelines.
- Primary endpoint: inpatient mortality; Secondary endpoints: complications, reintervention, and survival.
Main Results:
- 63% of patients met high-risk criteria; 40% had C-TBAD; 33 had uncomplicated TBAD.
- C-TBAD patients had longer hospital stays and shorter time to repair than HR-TEVAR.
- 3-year survival was worse for C-TBAD, but similar across groups excluding in-hospital mortality.
Conclusions:
- High-risk features are prevalent in acute TBAD, necessitating careful management.
- Both surgical (TEVAR) and medical management yielded acceptable outcomes for high-risk TBAD.
- TEVAR for high-risk TBAD demonstrated improved perioperative outcomes and mortality compared to TEVAR for C-TBAD.
Background:
Recently the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) published contemporary guidelines clearly defining complicated versus uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissections (TBADs) with an additional high-risk grouping. Few studies have evaluated outcomes associated with "high-risk" TBADs. The objective of this study was to assess differences in demographics, clinical presentation, symptom onset, and outcomes in high-risk patients that underwent either thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or best medical management for acute TBAD compared to those with complicated and uncomplicated acute TBAD.
Methods:
Patients admitted with acute TBADs from a single academic medical center from October 2011 to March 2020 were analyzed. Per the STS/SVS 2020 guidelines, high risk was defined as refractory pain/hypertension, bloody pleural effusion, aortic diameter >4 cm, false lumen diameter >22 mm, radiographic malperfusion, and early readmission, and complicated was defined as ruptured/malperfusion presentation. Uncomplicated patients were those without malperfusion/rupture and without high-risk features. The primary end-point was inpatient mortality. Secondary end-points included complications, reintervention, and survival.
Results:
Of the 159 patients identified with acute TBAD, 63 (40%) met the high-risk criteria. In the high-risk cohort, 38 (60%) underwent TEVAR (HR-TEVAR), with refractory pain as the most common indication, while 25 (40%) were managed medically (HR-medical). Malperfusion or rupture was present in 63 (40%) patients (complicated TBAD (C-TBAD)), all of whom underwent TEVAR. An additional 33 patients had no high-risk features and were all managed medically (uncomplicated TBAD). There were no differences in age, body mass index, and race between groups. Among the 4 groups, there were variable distributions in sex, insurance status, and incidence of several baseline comorbidities including congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and renal dysfunction (P < 0.05 for all). C-TBAD had increased length of stay (12, interquartile range [IQR] 9-22) compared to HR-TEVAR (11.5, IQR 7-15), HR-medical (6, IQR 5-8), and uncomplicated TBAD (7, IQR 5-10) (P < 0.01). C-TBAD had decreased days from admission to repair (0, IQR 0-2) compared to HR-TEVAR (3.5, IQR 1-8) (P < 0.01). C-TBAD patients had worse 3-year survival compared to other groups (log-rank P < 0.01), although when in-hospital mortality was excluded, survival was similar among groups (P = 0.37). Of patients initially managed medically, outpatient TEVAR was performed in 6 (24%) HR-medical and 4 (12%) uncomplicated patients, with no difference between rate of intervention between groups (P = 0.22).
Conclusions:
High-risk features, as defined in updated SVS/STS guidelines, are common in patients presenting with acute TBAD. High-risk patients had acceptable outcomes when managed either surgically or medically. High-risk patients that underwent TEVAR had improved perioperative outcomes and mortality compared to those undergoing TEVAR for C-TBAD, a finding which may help guide preoperative risk stratification and patient counseling.
Related Concept Videos
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction
Aortic Regurgitation II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Aneurysm II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management

