Equipoise: The basic necessity for conducting a trial on uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection

Clinical equipoise-genuine uncertainty within the expert community regarding the relative merits of competing treatments-forms the ethical and scientific foundation of randomized controlled trials. The growing adoption of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) has increasingly challenged the principle of clinical equipoise in the treatment algorithm of uTBAD. Optimal medical therapy remains the accepted standard in the treatment of uTBAD. However, the expanding role of TEVAR has led some clinicians and institutions to view early intervention as beneficial, despite the lack of definitive comparative data. Randomized controlled trials, such as INSTEAD, INSTEAD-XL, and ADSORB, have demonstrated that TEVAR promotes false-lumen thrombosis and remodeling, but have not shown a clear survival benefit over optimal medical therapy. Retrospective studies frequently suggest favorable aortic remodeling and improved survival with TEVAR, yet these associative findings cannot establish causality and fall short of the evidentiary strength required to resolve treatment uncertainty. Contemporary guidelines reflect this ambiguity by endorsing aggressive medical therapy with selective TEVAR for anatomically high-risk patients. In the absence of definitive data, practice patterns have been shaped by institutional culture. Persistent uncertainties underscore the need for a definitive randomized trial. These unresolved questions underscore the persistence of clinical equipoise and the ethical necessity for a definitive randomized trial. Equipoise is challenged by institutional culture, specialty bias, referral patterns, patient expectations, and device marketing. Clinical equipoise in uTBAD will be resolved by adequately powered trials demonstrating improvement in patient-centered outcomes. Surrogate measures of aortic remodeling are insufficient.