Background: Type B aortic dissection (TBAD), is defined as a dissection involving the aorta distal to left subclavian artery with the ascending aorta and the aortic arch not affected. TBAD is classified due to the time frame and presence of complications. Complicated TBAD (co-TBAD) patients have a greater mortality rate than uncomplicated TBAD (un-TBAD) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is considered the gold-standard intervention for these clinical challenges.Methods: We undertook a systematic review of the literature regarding TEVAR intervention in co-TBAD and un-TBAD. A comprehensive search was undertaken across four major databases and was evaluated and assessed until June 2020.Results: A total of 16,104 patients were included in the study (7772 patients co-TBAD and 8352 un-TBAD). A significantly higher proportion of comorbidities were seen in co-TBAD patients compared with un-TBAD. Acute dissection was more frequent in the co-TBAD group (73.55% vs. 66.91%), while chronic dissection was more common in un-TBAD patients (33.8% vs. 70.73%). Postprocedure stroke was higher in co-TBAD (5.85% vs. 3.92%; p < .01), while postprocedural renal failure was higher in un-TBAD patients (7.23 vs. 11.38%; p < .01). No difference was observed in in-hospital mortality however the 30 days mortality was higher in the co-TBAD group. One-year survival was higher in the uncomplicated group but this difference was not observed in the 5-year survival. Conclusion:In our analysis we can appreciate that despite significantly higher comorbidities in the co-TBAD cohort, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups and the 5-year survival did not have any difference.

Introduction: Diabetes mellitus is recognised as a significant risk factor for cardiovascular and peripheral vascular disease, as the abnormal metabolic state increases the risk for atherosclerosis, occlusive arterial disease and vascular dysfunction. There have been reports of potential association across the literature that illustrates a link between diabetes mellitus and aortic aneurysm, with the former having a protective role on the development of the latter.Methods: A thorough literature search was performed through electronic databases, to provide a comprehensive review of the study's reporting on the association of diabetes mellitus and aortic aneurysm, discussing the mechanisms that have been reported; furthemore, we reviewed the reports of the impact of oral hypoglycameic agents on aortic aneurysms.Results: Various proposed mechanisms are involved in this protective process including endothelial dysfunction, chronic hyperglycemia and insulin resistance. The evidence suggests a negative association between these disease process, with prevelance of diabetes mellitus resulting in lower rates of aortic aneurysm, via its protective mechanistic action. The increase in advanced glycation end products, increased arterial stiffness and vascular remodelling seen in diabetes, was found to have a profound impact on aneurysm development, its slow progression and lower rupture rate in these individuals. This review has also highlighted the role of oral hypoglycaemic agents having a protective effect against AA disease.Conclusion: A decrease in development, progression and mortality from aortic aneurysms as well as reduced rates of dissection, have been observed in those with diabetes. This review has provided a comprehensive insight on the effect of diabetes and its physiological processes, and elements of its con-committant treatment, having a protective role against these aortic diseases.

Background The use of the Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) device to manage complex surgical pathologies of the aorta (such as acute type A aortic dissection) has gained popularity since its introduction in the early 2000s. Though the distal anastomosis was traditionally performed at aortic Zone 3 (Z‐3‐FET), preference gradually shifted towards Zone 2 (Z‐2‐FET) in favor of improved surgical access and clinical outcomes. This review seeks to elucidate whether proximalization of arch repair to Zone 0 (Z‐0‐FET) would further improve postoperative outcomes. Methods We performed a review of available literature to evaluate the comparative efficacies of Z‐2‐FET versus Z‐0‐FET, in terms of surgical technique, clinical outcomes, and incidence of adverse events. Results Z‐0‐FET seems to be associated with a more accessible surgical approach, and shorter cardiopulmonary bypass, antegrade cerebral perfusion, and cardioplegia durations than Z‐2‐FET. Further, Z‐0‐FET is could potentially be associated with a lower incidence of neurological, renal, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, as well as mortality and reintervention rates than Z‐2‐FET. This said, Z‐0‐FET is itself associated with significant challenges, and efficacy in terms of postoperative true lumen integrity and false lumen thrombosis is mixed. Conclusion Current literature seems to suggest that Z‐0‐FET procedures are more straightforward and associated with lower rates of certain adverse events, however, the majority of data reviewed is retrospective. This review, therefore, recommends prospective research into the comparative strengths and limitations of Z‐0‐FET and Z‐2‐FET to better substantiate whether proximalization of arch repair represents a concept, or a true challenge to advance surgical intervention for arch pathologies.

Background Use of the Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) device to manage complex surgical pathologies of the aorta (e.g. acute Type A aortic dissection) has gained popularity since its introduction in the early 2000s. Though the distal anastomosis was traditionally performed at Zone 3 (Z-3-FET), preference gradually shifted towards Zone 2 (Z-2-FET) in favour of improved surgical access and outcomes. This review seeks to elucidate whether proximalisation of arch repair to Zone 0 (Z-0-FET) would further improve postoperative outcomes. Methods We performed a review of available literature to evaluate the comparative efficacies of Z-2-FET versus Z-0-FET, in terms of surgical technique, clinical outcomes, and incidence of adverse events. Results Z-0-FET seems to be associated with a more accessible surgical approach, and shorter cardiopulmonary bypass, antegrade cerebral perfusion, and cardioplegia durations than Z-2-FET. Further, Z-0-FET is could potentially be associated with a lower incidence of neurological, renal, and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, as well as mortality and reintervention rates than Z-2-FET. This said, Z-0-FET is itself associated with significant challenges, and efficacy in terms of postoperative true lumen integrity and false lumen thrombosis is mixed. Conclusion Current literature seems to suggest that Z-0-FET procedures are more straightforward and associated with lower rates of certain adverse events, however, the majority of data reviewed is retrospective. This review therefore recommends prospective research into the comparative strengths and limitations of Z-0-FET and Z-2-FET to better substantiate whether proximalisation of arch repair represents a concept, or a true challenge to advance surgical intervention for arch pathologies.

Acute type A aortic dissection is a surgical emergency and management of such pathology can be complex with poor outcomes when there is organ malperfusion. Carotid artery involvement is present in 30% of patients diagnosed with acute type A aortic dissection, and given its emergency and complex nature, there is much controversy regarding the approach, extent of treatment, and timing of the intervention. It is clear that the occurrence of cerebral malperfusion adds an extra layer of complexity to the decision-making framework for treatment. Standardization and validation of the optimal management approach is required, and this should ideally be addressed with large-scale studies. Nonetheless, current literature supports the need for rapid recognition and diagnosis of acute type A aortic dissection with cerebral malperfusion, immediate and extensive surgical repair, and the appropriate use of cerebral perfusion techniques. This paper aims to discuss the current evidence regarding the impact of carotid artery involvement in both the management and outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection.

Background: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD), is a surgical emergency often requiring intervention on the aortic root. There is much controversy regarding root management; aggressively pursuing a root replacement, versus more conservative approaches to preserve native structures. Methods: Electronic database search we performed through PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, google scholar and Cochrane identifying studies that reported on outcomes of surgical repair of ATAAD through either root preservation or replacement. The identified articles focused on short-and long-term mortalities, and rates of re-operation on the aortic root. Results: There remains controversy on replacing or preserving aortic root in ATAAD. Current evidence supports practice of both trends following an extensive decision-making framework, with conflicting series suggesting favourable results with both procedures as the approach that best defines higher survival rates and lower perioperative complications. Yet, the decision to perform either approach remains surgeon decision and bound to the extent of the dissection and tear entries in strong correlation with status of the aortic valve and involvement of coronaries in the dissection. Conclusions: There exists much controversy regarding fate of the aortic root in ATAAD. There are conflicting studies for impact of root replacement on mortality, whilst some study's report no significant results at all. There is strong evidence regarding risk of re-operation being greater when root is not replaced. Majority of these studies are limited by the single centred, retrospective nature of these small sample sized cohorts, further hindered by potential of treatment bias.

Background: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD), is a surgical emergency often requiring intervention on the aortic root. There is much controversy regarding root management; aggressively pursuing a root replacement, versus more conservative approaches to preserve native structures. Methods: Electronic database search we performed through PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, google scholar, and Cochrane identifying studies that reported on outcomes of surgical repair of ATAAD through either root preservation or replacement. The identified articles focused on short-and long-term mortalities, and rates of reoperation on the aortic root. Results: There remains controversy on replacing or preserving aortic root in ATAAD. Current evidence supports practice of both trends following an extensive decision-making framework, with conflicting series suggesting favorable results with both procedures as the approach that best defines higher survival rates and lower perioperative complications. Yet, the decision to perform either approach remains surgeon decision and bound to the extent of the dissection and tear entries in strong correlation with status of the aortic valve and involvement of coronaries in the dissection. Conclusions: There exists much controversy regarding fate of the aortic root in ATAAD. There are conflicting studies for impact of root replacement on mortality, whilst some study's report no significant results at all. There is strong evidence regarding risk of reoperation being greater when root is not replaced. Majority of these studies are limited by the single centered, retrospective nature of these small sample sized cohorts, further hindered by potential of treatment bias.

No abstract