IMR Press / RCM / Volume 24 / Issue 2 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2402034
Open Access Systematic Review
A Systematic Review on PETTICOAT and STABILISE Techniques for the Management of Complicated Acute Type B Aortic Dissection
Show Less
1 Vascular Surgery Department, Larissa University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, 41110 Larissa, Greece
2 German Aortic Center, Department of Vascular Medicine, University Heart and Vascular Center UKE Hamburg, 20251 Hamburg, Germany
*Correspondence: petr.nana7@hotmail.com (Petroula Nana)
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 24(2), 34; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2402034
Submitted: 27 September 2022 | Revised: 9 November 2022 | Accepted: 28 November 2022 | Published: 31 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Abstract

Background: Extended downstream endovascular management has been applied in acute complicated type B aortic dissection (acTBAD), distally to standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), using bare metal stents, with or without lamina disruption, using balloon inflation. The aim of this systematic review was to assess technical success, 30-day mortality, and mortality during follow-up in patients with acTBAD managed with the Provisional Extension To Induce Complete Attachment (PETTICOAT) or stent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption and relamination (STABILISE) technique. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement was followed. A search of the English literature, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until 30th August 2022, was executed. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies (published between 2000–2022), with 5 patients, reporting on technical success, 30-day mortality and mortality during the available follow-up among patients that underwent PETTICOAT or STABILISE technique for acTBAD were eligible. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30-day mortality, and secondary outcome was mortality during the available follow-up. Results: Thirteen studies were considered eligible, twelve in the quantitative analysis. In total, 418 patients with acTBAD managed with the PETTICOAT (83%) or STABILISE (17%) technique were included. Technical success ranged between 97–100%, 99% for the PETTICOAT and 100% for the STABILISE sub-cohort. Thirty-day mortality was estimated at 3.7% (12/321), 1.4% for the STABILISE and 4.4% for the PETTICOAT technique. All studies reported the mean available follow-up which was estimated at 20 months (range 3–168 months), 22 months (mean value) for the PETTICOAT and 17 months (mean value) for the STABILISE technique. Twenty-three patients died during follow-up, with an estimated mortality rate at 5.7% for the total cohort. The mortality during follow-up was 0% for the STABILISE and 7.0% for the PETTICOAT approach. Conclusions: Both, the PETTICOAT and STABILISE techniques presented less than 4% perioperative mortality in patients with acTBAD with high technical success rate. The mid-term mortality rate was at 6%. However, the heterogeneity in the available studies’ highlights the need for further prospective studies, including larger volume and longer follow-up.

Keywords
acute
dissection
type B
bare metal stent
stabilise
petticoat
Figures
Fig. 1.
Share
Back to top