Abstract 4368473: Comparative Outcomes of TEVAR and Non-TEVAR Management in Acute Uncomplicated Type B Aortic Dissection: Age-Stratified Analysis Using a Claims Database Including the Elderly in Japan
Abstract
Background: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard treatment for complicated type B aortic dissection, while randomized trials comparing TEVAR and optimal medical therapy for uncomplicated TBAD (uTBAD) are ongoing. Our previous study using a Japanese claims database reported long-term outcomes of uTBAD but did not include individuals aged ≥75 due to the bifurcated insurance system. Objective: To evaluate all-cause mortality associated with TEVAR versus non-TEVAR management in patients with acute uTBAD, including both elderly and non-elderly populations, using real-world data. Methods: We analyzed two national health claim databases, Cohort A (individuals aged ≥75) and Cohort B (self-employed individuals and their family members, all aged <75), from April 2014 to June 2024. Within each cohort, patients with acute uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (uTBAD) were identified using the same criteria. Patients receiving TEVAR during the subacute phase (15–90 days) were assigned to the TEVAR group; others to the non-TEVAR group. Propensity score matching (1:5) was performed separately in each cohort, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medications. All-cause mortality was compared using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: After matching, 1,028 patients were included in Cohort A (TEVAR: 174; non-TEVAR: 854) and 730 in Cohort B (TEVAR: 122; non-TEVAR: 608). Median age in Cohort A was 80 (both groups), and in Cohort B was 66.5 (TEVAR) and 67 (non-TEVAR). Median follow-up was 29 vs. 27 months (IQR: 18–40 vs. 17–41) in Cohort A and 35 vs. 32 months (IQR: 19–51 vs. 17–49) in Cohort B for TEVAR and non-TEVAR groups, respectively. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no significant difference in mortality between groups (log-rank p=0.2205 for A; p=0.2197 for B). Conclusion: In this nationwide real-world study, we observed no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality between TEVAR and non-TEVAR management within either age cohort. These findings support the clinical equipoise underlying ongoing randomized controlled trials for uTBAD. Meanwhile, patient background and survival outcomes in the non-TEVAR groups within each cohort strongly suggest the influence of age-related confounding factors. Real-world data should be carefully interpreted when used to complement the generalizability of trial findings.
Article Details
Authors (5)
Yuki Kimura
Hiroshi Ohtsu
Naohiro Yonemoto
Nobuyoshi Azuma
Asahikawa Medical University, Asahikawa, Japan
Kazuhiro Sase
JUNTENDO UNIVERSITY, Tokyo, Japan