Since its clinical implementation in the late nineties, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the standard treatment of several acute and chronic diseases of the thoracic aorta. While TEVAR has been embraced by many, this disruptive technology has also stimulated the continuing evolution of open surgery, which became even more important as late TEVAR failures do need open surgical correction justifying the need to unite both treatment options under one umbrella. This fact shows the importance of—in analogy to the heart team—aortic centre formation and centralization of care, which stimulates continuing development and improves outcome . The next frontier to be explored is the most proximal component of the aorta—the aortic root, in particular in acute type A aortic dissection—which remains the main challenge for the years to come. The aim of this document is to provide the reader with a synopsis of current evidence regarding the use or non-use of TEVAR in acute and chronic thoracic aortic disease, to share latest recommendations for a modified terminology and for reporting standards and finally to provide a glimpse into future developments.

The aorta is the largest artery in the body, delivering oxygenated blood from the left ventricle to all organs. Dissection of the aorta is a lethal condition caused by a tear in the intimal layer of the aorta, followed by blood loss within the aortic wall and separation of the layers to full dissection. The aorta can be affected by a wide range of causes including acute conditions such as trauma and mechanical damage; and genetic conditions such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and connective tissue disorders; all increasing the risk of dissection. Both rapid diagnostic recognition and advanced multidisciplinary treatment are critical in managing aortic dissection patients. The treatment depends on the severity and location of the dissection. Open surgical repair is the gold standard of treatment for dissections located to the proximal part of the aorta and the arch, while endovascular interventions are recommended for most distal or type B aortic dissections. In this review article, we examine the epidemiology, pathophysiology, contemporary diagnoses, and management of aortic dissection.

Background: Type B aortic dissection is a life-threatening acute aortic condition often with acute ischemic signs or symptoms. With initial management focusing on alleviating malperfusion and pain, and avoiding propagation of dissection or rupture both systolic blood and pulse pressure should be reduced initially by an aggressive medical approach. In the setting of persistent signs of complications endovascular strategies have replaced open surgery and led to a fourfold increase in early survival and better long-term outcomes. Methods: An electronic health database search was performed on articles published between January 2006 and July 2017. Publications were included in this review if (I) the index aortic pathology was type B aortic (distal) dissection; (II) when medical management, open surgical replacement or thoracic endovascular aortic repair were among those options; (III) when at least one of all basic outcome criteria such as survival, spinal cord ischemia and cerebrovascular accident was reported; (IV) when ≥15 serial patients were included. A total of 62 studies were eligible and analysed. Results: Our manuscript has summarized data collected over 12 years on management specific outcomes in the setting of distal aortic dissection and provides an up-to-date interpretation of the published evidence. For complicated cases, treated acutely, the 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 7.3% when managed by endovascular means, whereas the pooled rate for 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 19.0% when subjected to open repair. For acute uncomplicated type B dissection usually treated with blood pressure lowering medications, the pooled 30-day or in-hospital mortality rate was 2.4%. Survival rates at 5 years averaged at 60% (40% mortality). Freedom from any aortic event ranged from 34.0% to 83.9%, underlining an inherent risk of progression and late complications. For chronic complicated type B dissection, the rates of stroke, paraplegia and operative mortality following endovascular repair ranged from 5% to 13%, 2% to 13% and 2 to 13%, respectively, while 5-year survival rates after open repair ranged from 60% to 90%. In chronic uncomplicated type B dissection almost 90% of patients survive initial hospitalization and were subjected to medical management with a 5-year survival of 50–80%. However, up to 20–55% of medically treated patients develop aneurysmal degeneration after 5 years with an unknown risk of rupture. Conclusions: Currently, the less invasive strategy of endovascular repair (as compared to open surgery) provides improved 30-day or in-hospital survival in the setting of complicated acute type B aortic dissection and may seek broad application. Open surgical aortic reconstruction should be left to experienced aortic centres if endovascular management is not an option.

Obesity used to be among the more neglected public health problems, but has unfolded as a growing medical and socioeconomic burden of epidemic proportions. Morbid obesity is linked to traditional cardiovascular risk factors like, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and diabetes, and suspected to incur increased morbidity and mortality in the Western and even third world populations. This patient cohort is also at greater risk to develop coronary artery disease. Recent population-based registries revealed that 43% and 24% of all cases of coronary revascularization were carried out in overweight and obese patients, respectively. However, despite evidence of a positive correlation between obesity and increased cardiovascular morbidity, some authors have described a better clinical outcome in overweight and obese patients, a phenomenon they coined “obesity paradoxon”. Thus, there is an ongoing debate in light of conflicting data and the possibility of confounding bias causing misconception and challenging the “obesity paradox”. In this review article we present the current evidence and throughly discuss the validity of the “obesity paradoxon” in a variety of clinical settings.