Critical Review of Guidelines for Type B Aortic Dissection.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Mario D'Oria, Jacob Budtz-Lilly, Kevin Mani, Peter Legeza, Gabriele Piffaretti, Mohamad Bashir, Matti Jubouri, Giovanni Tinelli, Salvatore Scali
{"title":"Critical Review of Guidelines for Type B Aortic Dissection.","authors":"Mario D'Oria, Jacob Budtz-Lilly, Kevin Mani, Peter Legeza, Gabriele Piffaretti, Mohamad Bashir, Matti Jubouri, Giovanni Tinelli, Salvatore Scali","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2025.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The management of type B aortic dissection is one of the most challenging and debated topics in contemporary cardiovascular surgery practice. Patients with acute or chronic dissection-related complications, face high morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly. For most patients requiring intervention, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is considered the gold standard. However, both early and late TEVAR-related complications make decision-making complex, even for experienced clinicians. In many cases, optimal medical management with longitudinal imaging surveillance may be preferred. In response to these challenges, several societal guidelines have recently been published<sup>1-5</sup> to provide evidence-based or expert consensus 'best practice' recommendations. Although these guidelines share many commonalities, they also highlight key unresolved clinical questions. For example, debates persist over the appropriate use of TEVAR for 'uncomplicated' TBAD, defining 'high-risk' criteria for uncomplicated presentations, and management of the false lumen, among other topics. Despite recent updates, a critical evaluation of the nuanced differences between these guidelines is lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to compare current clinical practice guidelines, highlight their similarities and differences, and offer a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence surrounding management of TBAD. Moreover, this analysis will provide recommendations to address important knowledge gaps.</p>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2025.01.002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The management of type B aortic dissection is one of the most challenging and debated topics in contemporary cardiovascular surgery practice. Patients with acute or chronic dissection-related complications, face high morbidity and mortality if not treated promptly. For most patients requiring intervention, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is considered the gold standard. However, both early and late TEVAR-related complications make decision-making complex, even for experienced clinicians. In many cases, optimal medical management with longitudinal imaging surveillance may be preferred. In response to these challenges, several societal guidelines have recently been published1-5 to provide evidence-based or expert consensus 'best practice' recommendations. Although these guidelines share many commonalities, they also highlight key unresolved clinical questions. For example, debates persist over the appropriate use of TEVAR for 'uncomplicated' TBAD, defining 'high-risk' criteria for uncomplicated presentations, and management of the false lumen, among other topics. Despite recent updates, a critical evaluation of the nuanced differences between these guidelines is lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to compare current clinical practice guidelines, highlight their similarities and differences, and offer a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence surrounding management of TBAD. Moreover, this analysis will provide recommendations to address important knowledge gaps.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
603
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Vascular Surgery, published eight times a year, invites original manuscripts reporting clinical and experimental work in vascular surgery for peer review. Articles may be submitted for the following sections of the journal: Clinical Research (reports of clinical series, new drug or medical device trials) Basic Science Research (new investigations, experimental work) Case Reports (reports on a limited series of patients) General Reviews (scholarly review of the existing literature on a relevant topic) Developments in Endovascular and Endoscopic Surgery Selected Techniques (technical maneuvers) Historical Notes (interesting vignettes from the early days of vascular surgery) Editorials/Correspondence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信