Home About us Articles Multimedia Search Instructions Login 
IF 2017: 1.596 (® Clarivate Analytics)
Total Cites: 7606
Q2 in Medicine, General & Internal
Follow Us
Follow Us
  • Users Online: 1127
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 130  |  Issue : 19  |  Page : 2321-2325

Safety and Necessity of Antiplatelet Therapy on Patients Underwent Endovascular Aortic Repair with Both Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection and Coronary Heart Disease


Department of Cardiology, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region, Shenyang, Liaoning 110016, China

Date of Submission14-May-2017
Date of Web Publication22-Sep-2017

Correspondence Address:
Xiao-Zeng Wang
Department of Cardiology, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region, 83 Wenhua Road, Shenyang, Liaoning 110016
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.215330

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


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.

Keywords: Acute Coronary Syndrome; Antiplatelet; Aortic Dissection; Endovascular Aortic Repair


How to cite this article:
He RX, Zhang L, Zhou TN, Yuan WJ, Liu YJ, Fu WX, Jing QM, Liu HW, Wang XZ. Safety and Necessity of Antiplatelet Therapy on Patients Underwent Endovascular Aortic Repair with Both Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection and Coronary Heart Disease. Chin Med J 2017;130:2321-5

How to cite this URL:
He RX, Zhang L, Zhou TN, Yuan WJ, Liu YJ, Fu WX, Jing QM, Liu HW, Wang XZ. Safety and Necessity of Antiplatelet Therapy on Patients Underwent Endovascular Aortic Repair with Both Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection and Coronary Heart Disease. Chin Med J [serial online] 2017 [cited 2018 Sep 26];130:2321-5. Available from: http://www.cmj.org/text.asp?2017/130/19/2321/215330




  Introduction Top


Acute aortic dissection is known as the most dangerous aortic disease,[1],[2],[3] with management and prognosis determined as the disruption of the medial layer provoked by intramural bleeding. Stanford Type A aortic dissection should be treated with urgent surgical intervention, whereas Stanford Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) could be treated with endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) or medical treatment.[4] TBAD patients always combined with coronary heart disease (CHD). These patients may require PCI after EVAR or require necessary anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies.[5] However, anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies in patients with aortic dissection might lead to consequences such as rupture of the aortic wall and bleeding complications.[6] Previous studies showed that chronic anticoagulation therapy can increase the incidence of reintervention and endoleak in patients with TBAD and CHD.[7] Other studies have showed a significant increase of ischemic events in patients with TBAD and CHD without antiplatelet therapy after EVAR.[8],[9],[10] Therefore, it was an unsolved problem whether antiplatelet therapy should be used in patients with TBAD and CHD. The present study aimed at evaluating the safety and necessary of antiplatelet therapy for TBAD treated with EVAR combined with CHD.


  Methods Top


Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region, China (No.(2016) 93).

Study population

A total of 388 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR for TBAD were recruited from January 2007 to August 2014 at General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region. All patients were diagnosed by aortic angiography. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Patients with TBAD combined with aortic aneurysm; (2) patients with successfully implanted aortic graft with TBAD; and (3) patients with TBAD who underwent coronary angiography. Patients with aortic disease would be excluded if they met the following criteria for EVAR: (1) Patients diagnosed as explicitly Stanford Type A aortic dissection, penetrating aortic ulcers, trauma dissection, pseudo aneurysm, intramural hematoma, aortic aneurysm, and Marfan syndrome; (2) patients with TBAD after Stanford Type A aortic dissection (such as Marfan syndrome) of postsurgery; (3) recurrence in patients with Stanford B aortic dissection needed to treat with EVAR again; (4) patients with previous myocardial infarction and severe heart, liver, and renal insufficiency inhibition for aortic angiography examination; (5) patients with the severity of bleeding disorders recently or active bleeding; (6) patients associated with serious basis diseases; and (7) patients allergic to contrast agents.

Study design

The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the application of antiplatelet drugs into two groups. The characteristics of patients treated with aspirin (139 cases) for at least one coronary artery stenosis ≥50% with one or more risk factors were as follows: aging ≥45 years in males and >50 years in females, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and coronary angiography performed before EVAR deployment. Among them, 44 patients underwent PCI 3 days to 3 months after EVAR. All of them were treated with clopidogrel for 1 year. Patients whose coronary artery angiography stenosis <50% or coronary artery stenosis ≥50% without risk factor mentioned before were not treated with aspirin (249 cases).

End point

Primary outcomes for the study were incidence of hemorrhage (based on the BARC classification), death (cardiac death, aortic cardiac death, and other reasons of death), endoleak, recurrent dissection, myocardial infarction, and cerebral infarction in patients with or without antiplatelet therapy at 1 month and 12 months.

Follow-up

Follow-up was performed on all patients after discharge until the end of the study period in September 2015 using a combination of direct patient contact, telephone interview, and referring physician contact. The patients were followed up at 1st month, 6th month, 1 year, and then annually after the procedure. Patients' blood pressure, use of medication, general physical condition, and outcomes were recorded.

Statistical methods

Comparisons between continuous variable data, expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), were performed with the t-test, while the Chi-square or the Fisher's exact tests were used for categorical data, expressed as percentages. Statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS version 20.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). A two-sided P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


  Results Top


Baseline characteristics

A total of 388 patients were enrolled in this study, of whom 139 (35.8%) patients were treated with aspirin and 249 (64.2%) patients were not treated with aspirin. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were summarized in [Table 1]. Patients in the aspirin group were elder than those in the no-aspirin group (57.0 ± 10.3 years vs. 52.5 ± 11.9 years, respectively, t = 3.812, P < 0.001). More patients had a history of 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) in the aspirin group than those in the no-aspirin group. There were more patients using statins in the aspirin group than no-aspirin group (52.5% vs. 21.7%, χ2 = 38.511, P < 0.001). Other baseline characteristics showed no significant differences between the two groups.
Table 1: Baseline characteristics, history, and medication in hospital between the two groups

Click here to view


Clinical outcomes

Twelve patients died during the 1-month follow-up, of whom 5 (3.6%) patients were treated with aspirin and 7 (2.8%) patients were not treated with aspirin (χ2 = 0.184, P = 0.668). The details are summarized in [Table 2]. Hemorrhage occurred in four patients, one (BARC Type 2) was in the aspirin group while the other three (1 BARC Type 2 and 2 BARC Type 5) were in the no-aspirin group. Recurrent dissection occurred in eight patients for endoleak, three of whom were in the aspirin group while five of them were in the no-aspirin group (2.3% vs. 2.2%, respectively, χ2 = 0.074, P = 0.785). Each group had one patient with myocardial infarction (0.8% and 0.4%, respectively, χ2 = 0.102, P = 0.749). No one had cerebral infarction in both groups. Overall, there was no significant difference in the end points between the two groups.
Table 2: Clinical outcomes at 1-month follow-up between the two groups

Click here to view


Eighteen patients were lost to follow-up at 12 months. Eighteen patients died during 12-month follow-up, of whom six (4.6%) patients were treated with aspirin and 12 (5.0%) patients were not treated with aspirin (χ2 = 0.027, P = 0.870). The details are summarized in [Table 3]. Hemorrhage occurred in nine patients, one (BARC Type 2) was in the aspirin group while the other eight patients (4 BARC Type 2 and 4 BARC Type 5) were in the no-aspirin group. Four patients had new dissection in the no-aspirin group at 12-month follow-up. The no-aspirin group had one patient with myocardial infarction at 12-month follow-up. No one had cerebral infarction in both groups. Overall, there was no significant difference in the end points between the two groups.
Table 3: Clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up between the two groups

Click here to view


Clinical outcomes in antiplatelet subgroup

Of the patients who were treated with aspirin, 44 (31.7%) patients had taken dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, aspirin + clopidogrel) and the other 95 (68.3%) patients had taken only aspirin. To evaluate the differences between DAPT and only aspirin, these 139 patients were divided into two groups, two and seven patients had lost to follow-up at 12 months in each group, respectively. The outcome comparison at 12 months between the two groups is shown in [Table 4]. Only one patient occurred hemorrhage in the only-aspirin group (0.0% vs. 1.1%, χ2 = 0.144, P = 0.704). Six patients died during 12-month follow-up, of whom 2 (4.8%) patients were treated with DAPT and four (4.5%) patients were in only-aspirin group (χ2 = 0.154, P = 0.695). Three patients had recurrent dissection for endoleak, all of whom were in the only-aspirin group (χ2 = 0.344, P = 0.558). Only one patient had myocardial infarction in the only-aspirin group compared to those in the DAPT group (2.4% vs. 0.0%, respectively, χ2 = 0.144, P = 0.704). There was no significant difference between the two groups at 12 months.
Table 4: Clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up between DAPT and the only-aspirin groups

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


In this retrospective study, patients with TBAD and CHD who underwent EVAR shows favorable safety on antiplatelet therapy. In the absence of prospective, randomized trials, there were increasing evidences that EVAR shows a significant advantage over open surgery in patients with acute TBAD.[11],[12],[13] CHD had a high incidence in aortic disease patients.[14] Many studies had shown that CHD was the main cause of death after EVAR.[15],[16] In addition, many studies had shown that patients with aortic disease combined with CHD should undergo PCI within 2 weeks after EVAR and should receive antiplatelet therapy.[5],[8],[10] In the present study, PCI was performed within 3–7 days after EVAR, and all the patients who were diagnosed to have CHD had received antiplatelet therapy.

Aortic dissection and CHD have common risk factors as follows: age, hypertension, and diabetes. The ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography recommend coronary angiography before valve surgery or balloon valvotomy in an adult with chest discomfort or ischemia by noninvasive imaging, or in an adult free of chest pain but of substantial age and/or multiple risk factors for CHD.[17] In the present study, 139 (35.8%) patients had a coronary stenosis >50% and 44 (11.3%) patients had a coronary stenosis >70%. The 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization suggest that PCI in CHD should be advised DAPT including long-term oral aspirin followed by 75–100 mg daily plus clopidogrel 75 mg daily for 12 months.[14] However, there is no consensus on feasibility and safety on the use of antiplatelet therapy for patients with aortic dissection who underwent EVAR. In the present study, we evaluated the safety and necessary of antiplatelet therapy for TBAD treated with EVAR combined with CHD using end points such as hemorrhage, endoleak, recurrent dissection, death, myocardial infarction, and cerebral infarction. As our results showed that there is no significant difference at 1-month follow-up, the 12-month follow-up also showed no significant difference in all end points. The results indicated that long-term oral low-dose aspirin was safe for the TBAD patients who underwent EVAR. For the PCI subgroup, DAPT compared with only aspirin also showed no significance in hemorrhage, endoleak, recurrent dissection, death, and myocardial infarction. This was a single-center, retrospective study. The number of patients was not large and the follow-up was not long enough.

The present study indicated that long-term oral low-dose aspirin was safe for the patients with both TBAD and CHD who underwent EVAR. For patients who underwent both EVAR and PCI, DAPT also showed no increase in hemorrhage, endoleak, recurrent dissection, death, and myocardial infarction.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Clouse WD, Hallett JW Jr., Schaff HV, Spittell PC, Rowland CM, Ilstrup DM,et al. Acute aortic dissection: Population-based incidence compared with degenerative aortic aneurysm rupture. Mayo Clin Proc 2004;79:176-80.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
White A, Broder J, Mando-Vandrick J, Wendell J, Crowe J. Acute aortic emergencies – Part 2: Aortic dissections. Adv Emerg Nurs J 2013;35:28-52. doi: 10.1097/TME.0b013e31827145d0.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Safi HJ, Estrera AL. Aortic dissection. Br J Surg 2004;91:523-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, Bersin RM, Carr VF, Casey DE Jr., et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:e27-129. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.015.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Jing Q, Guo L, Wang X, Luan B, Wang G, Liu X, et al. Percutaneous transluminal intervention and antiplatelet therapy following endovascular graft exclusion for Stanford B thoracic aortic dissection. Int J Cardiol 2013;165:478-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.09.013.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Davis DP, Grossman K, Kiggins DC, Vilke GM, Chan TC. The inadvertent administration of anticoagulants to ED patients ultimately diagnosed with thoracic aortic dissection. Am J Emerg Med 2005;23:439-42.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
De Rango P, Verzini F, Parlani G, Cieri E, Simonte G, Farchioni L, et al. Safety of chronic anticoagulation therapy after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2014;47:296-303. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2013.12.009.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Cambria RP, Brewster DC, Gertler J, Moncure AC, Gusberg R, Tilson MD,et al. Vascular complications associated with spontaneous aortic dissection. J Vasc Surg 1988;7:199-209.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Fann JI, Sarris GE, Mitchell RS, Shumway NE, Stinson EB, Oyer PE,et al. Treatment of patients with aortic dissection presenting with peripheral vascular complications. Ann Surg 1990;212:705-13.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Pecoraro F, Wilhelm M, Kaufmann AR, Bettex D, Maier W, Mayer D, et al. Early endovascular aneurysm repair after percutaneous coronary interventions. J Vasc Surg 2015;61:1146-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.12.044.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, Bossone E, Bartolomeo RD, Eggebrecht H, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: Document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2014;35:2873-926. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu281.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Guo BL, Shi ZY, Guo DQ, Wang LX, Tang X, Li WM, et al. Effect of intravascular ultrasound-assisted thoracic endovascular aortic repair for “Complicated” type B aortic dissection. Chin Med J 2015;128:2322-9. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.163386.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
13.
Huang WH, Luo SY, Luo JF, Liu Y, Fan RX, Xue L,et al. Perioperative aortic dissection rupture after endovascular stent graft placement for treatment of type B dissection. Chin Med J 2013;126:1636-41. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20123428.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Bayazit M, Göl MK, Battaloglu B, Tokmakoglu H, Tasdemir O, Bayazit K. Routine coronary arteriography before abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Am J Surg 1995;170:246-50.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Paravastu SC, Jayarajasingam R, Cottam R, Palfreyman SJ, Michaels JA, Thomas SM. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;1:CD004178. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004178.pub2.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Rose J, Evans C, Barleben A, Bandyk D, Wilson SE, Chang DC, et al. Comparative safety of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair over open repair using patient safety indicators during adoption. JAMA Surg 2014;149:926-32. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.1018.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, Carabello B, Dehmer GJ, Eagle KA, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography: Executive summary and recommendations. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography) developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 1999;99:2345-57.  Back to cited text no. 17
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed320    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded128    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal




京ICP备05052599号