Search

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and necessity of antithrombotic drugs for acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).The patients of acute TBAD treated with TEVAR were retrospectively enrolled from January 2007 to October 2022 in General Hospital of Northern Theater Command. The primary outcomes such as mortality and aortic adverse events [stroke, paraplegia, limb ischemia, organ failure (renal and intestinal tract), endoleak, redissection, aortic rupture, reintervention, and mortality] were recorded and evaluated at 1 month (early term) and 18 months (late term).The 697 patients of TBAD treated with TEVAR were divided into the antithrombotic (AT) group (n = 208) and nonantithrombotic (NAT) group (n = 489). The incidence of early mortality, early aortic adverse events, and the 18 months of cumulative freedom from all-cause mortality and aortic adverse events were not significantly different between the AT and NAT groups (2.4% versus 1.4%, 2.9% versus 4.5%, 94.7% versus 96.5% and 88.4% versus 89.9%, respectively). Log-rank tests also indicated that there were no significant differences. In multivariate Cox regression models, only pleural effusion, partially thrombosed of false lumen, maximum diameter of false lumen, and branch involvement were independent predictors of mortality, whereas the systolic blood pressure (SBP), pleural effusion, partially thrombosed of false lumen, true lumen compression, maximum diameter of false lumen, branch involvement were independent predictors of adverse aortic events.The antithrombotic drug for acute TBAD treated with TEVAR does not influence the mortality and aortic events in the early and late terms.

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Background: Acute aortic dissection is known as the most dangerous aortic disease, with management and prognosis determined as the disruption of the medial layer provoked by intramural bleeding. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and necessity of antiplatelet therapy on patients with Stanford Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) who underwent endovascular aortic repair (EVAR)., Methods: The present study retrospectively analyzed 388 patients with TBAD who underwent EVAR and coronary angiography. The primary outcomes were hemorrhage, death, endoleak, recurrent dissection, myocardial infarction, and cerebral infarction in patients with and without aspirin antiplatelet therapy at 1 month and 12 months., Results: Of those 388 patients, 139 (35.8%) patients were treated with aspirin and 249 (64.2%) patients were not treated with aspirin. Patients in the aspirin group were elderly (57.0 ± 10.3 years vs. 52.5 ± 11.9 years, respectively, χ2 = 3.812, P < 0.001) and had more hypertension (92.1% vs. 83.9%, respectively, χ2 = 5.191, P = 0.023) and diabetes (7.2% vs. 2.8%, respectively, χ2 = 4.090, P = 0.043) than in the no-aspirin group. Twelve patients (aspirin group vs. no-aspirin group; 3.6% vs. 2.8%, respectively, χ2 = 0.184, P = 0.668) died at 1-month follow-up, while the number was 18 (4.6% vs. 5.0%, respectively, χ2 = 0.027, P = 0.870) at 12-month follow-up. Hemorrhage occurred in 1 patient (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] Type 2) of the aspirin group, and 3 patients (1 BARC Type 2 and 2 BARC Type 5) in the no-aspirin group at 1-month follow-up (χ2 = 0.005, P = 0.944). New hemorrhage occurred in five patients in the no-aspirin group at 12-month follow-up. Three patients in the aspirin group while five patients in the no-aspirin group had recurrent dissection for endoleak at 1-month follow-up (2.3% vs. 2.2%, respectively, χ2 = 0.074, P = 0.816). Four patients had new dissection in the no-aspirin group at 12-month follow-up (2.3% vs. 3.8%, respectively, χ2 = 0.194, P = 0.660). Each group had one patient with myocardial infarction at 1-month follow-up (0.8% vs. 0.4%, respectively, χ2 = 0.102, P = 0.749) and one more patient in the no-aspirin group at 12-month follow-up. No one had cerebral infarction in both groups during the 12-month follow-up. In the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) subgroup, 44 (31.7%) patients had taken dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, aspirin + clopidogrel) and the other 95 (68.3%) patients had taken only aspirin. There was no significant difference in hemorrhage (0% vs. 1.1%, respectively, χ2 = 0.144, P = 0.704), death (4.8% vs. 4.5%, respectively, χ2 = 0.154, P = 0.695), myocardial infarction (2.4% vs. 0%, respectively, χ2 = 0.144, P = 0.704), endoleak, and recurrent dissection (0% vs. 3.4%, respectively, χ2 = 0.344, P = 0.558) between the two groups at 12-month follow-up., Conclusions: The present study indicated that long-term oral low-dose aspirin was safe for patients with both TBAD and coronary heart disease who underwent EVAR. For the patients who underwent both EVAR and PCI, DAPT also showed no increase in hemorrhage, endoleak, recurrent dissection, death, and myocardial infarction.

Objective: To investigate the clinical outcomes influenced by distal extension of false lumen in acute type B aortic dissection (TBAD) patients following thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)., Methods: From April 2002 to January 2013, 264 TBAD patients treated with TEVAR were retrospectively enrolled. The IIIa group exhibited a distal false lumen above the diaphragm (n = 70), and the IIIb group exhibited a distal false lumen under the diaphragm (n = 194). The morphological characteristics and adverse events (30-day and >30 days) were recorded and evaluated., Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the demographics, comorbidity profiles, or initial feature of computed tomography angiography. The incidence of true lumen compression and branch involvement were significantly increased in the IIIb group compared with the IIIa group (8.6% vs. 25.3%, respectively; 15.7% vs. 36.1%, respectively, both P < 0.05). The 30-day mortality rate was 1.0% (2/194) in the IIIb group, whereas the IIIa group was zero. The incidence of early adverse events, the 5-year cumulative freedom from adverse events, and the 5-year cumulative freedom from all-cause mortality rate were not significantly different between the IIIa and IIIb groups (2.9% vs. 6.7%, 81.4%, and 80.4%, and 95.7% vs. 93.8%, respectively, all P > 0.05). Log-rank tests also indicated there was no significant difference., Conclusions: There was no significant difference between the IIIa and IIIb groups in the 5-year morality and adverse aortic events following TEVAR. The distal extension of false lumen prior to TEVAR does not influence the long-term morality and adverse aortic events in acute TBAD., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Low responsiveness to clopidogrel (LRC) is associated with increased risk of ischemic events. This study was aimed to explore the feasibility of tailored antiplatelet therapy according to the responsiveness to clopidogrel., Methods: A total of 305 clopidogrel naïve patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing coronary stenting were randomly assigned to receive standard (n = 151) or tailored (n = 154) antiplatelet therapy. The ADP-induced platelet aggregation tests by light transmission aggregometry were performed to identify LRC patients assigned to the tailored group. The standard antiplatelet regimen was dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. The tailored antiplatelet therapy was standard regimen for non-LRC patients and an additional 6-month cilostazol treatment for LRC patients. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke at one year., Results: LCR was present in 26.6% (41/154) of patients in the tailored group. The percentage platelet aggregation for LCR patients was significantly decreased at three days after adjunctive cilostazol treatment (77.5% ± 12.1% vs. 64.5% ± 12.1%, P < 0.001). At one year follow-up, a non-significant 37% relative risk reduction of primary events were observed in the tailored group as compared to the standard group (5.8% vs. 9.3%, P = 0.257). There were no differences in the rates of stent thrombosis and hemorrhagic events between the two groups., Conclusions: Tailored antiplatelet therapy for ACS patients after coronary stenting according to responsiveness to clopidogrel is feasible. However, its efficacy and safety need further confirmation by clinical trials with larger sample sizes.