Characteristics of the patients.

BackgroundThe most appropriate surgical method for patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) in the chronic phase remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with UTBAD who needed aortic treatment as well as the impact of the treatment method or indication criteria on their prognosis.MethodsThis retrospective review of 106 consecutive patients with aortic events in the chronic phase who underwent initial treatment for UTBAD between 2004 and 2021 comprised three groups: 19 patients who underwent endovascular repair (TEVAR), 38 who underwent open aortic repair and the medication group that included 49 patients. Aortic events were defined as a late operation or indication for operation for dissected aorta, aortic diameter (AD) ≥ 55 mm, rapid aortic enlargement (≥5 mm/6 months), and saccular aneurysmal change. The endpoint was all-cause death. We assessed the association between treatment methods or surgical indication criteria and mortality using a Cox regression analysis.ResultsThe 5-year actuarial mortality rates were 27.1% in the TEVAR group, 19.6% in the open aortic repair group, and 38.4% in the medication group (p = 0.86). Moreover, the 5-year actuarial mortality rates in patients who had AD ≥ 55 mm were significantly higher than those patients with other surgical indication criteria (41.2% vs. 18.7%, p p p ConclusionsUnder the existing surgical indication criteria, there was no difference in mortality rates among patients with UTBAD based on their surgical treatment.</div

Predictive Power of a Body Shape Index for Development of Diabetes, Hypertension, and Dyslipidemia in Japanese Adults: A Retrospective Cohort Study

<div><p>Background/Objectives</p><p>Recently, a body shape index (ABSI) was reported to predict all-cause mortality independently of body mass index (BMI) in Americans. This study aimed to evaluate whether ABSI is applicable to Japanese adults as a predictor for development of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.</p><p>Subjects/Methods</p><p>We evaluated the predictive power of ABSI in a retrospective cohort study using annual health examination data from Chiba City Hall in Japan, for the period 2008 to 2012. Subjects included 37,581 without diabetes, 23,090 without hypertension, and 20,776 without dyslipidemia at baseline who were monitored for disease incidence for 4 years. We examined the associations of standardized ABSI, BMI, and waist circumference (WC) at baseline with disease incidence by logistic regression analyses. Furthermore, we conducted a case-matched study using the propensity score matching method.</p><p>Results</p><p>Elevated BMI, WC, and ABSI increased the risks of diabetes and dyslipidemia [BMI-diabetes: odds ratio (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.20−1.32; BMI-dyslipidemia: OR = 1.15, 95%CI = 1.12−1.19; WC-diabetes: OR = 1.24, 95%CI = 1.18−1.31; WC-dyslipidemia: OR = 1.15, 95%CI = 1.11−1.19; ABSI-diabetes: OR = 1.06, 95%CI = 1.01−1.11; ABSI-dyslipidemia: OR = 1.04, 95%CI = 1.01−1.07]. Elevated BMI and WC, but not higher ABSI, also increased the risk of hypertension [BMI: OR = 1.32, 95%CI = 1.27−1.37; WC: OR = 1.22, 95%CI = 1.18−1.26; ABSI: OR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.97−1.02]. Areas under the curve (AUCs) in regression models with ABSI were significantly smaller than in models with BMI or WC for all three diseases. In case-matched subgroups, the power of ABSI was weaker than that of BMI and WC for predicting the incidence of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Compared with BMI or WC, ABSI was not a better predictor of diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia in Japanese adults.</p></div

Patient selection flow diagram.

Flow diagram of the entire series of patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection. TEVAR, thoracic endovascular aortic repair.</p

Impact of geographic accessibility on utilization of the annual health check-ups by income level in Japan: A multilevel analysis

<div><p>Although both geographic accessibility and socioeconomic status have been indicated as being important factors for the utilization of health care services, their combined effect has not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to reveal whether an income-dependent difference in the impact of geographic accessibility on the utilization of government-led annual health check-ups exists. Existing data collected and provided by Chiba City Hall were employed and analyzed as a retrospective cohort study. The subjects were 166,966 beneficiaries of National Health Insurance in Chiba City, Japan, aged 40 to 74 years. Of all subjects, 54,748 (32.8%) had an annual health check-up in fiscal year 2012. As an optimal index of geographic accessibility has not been established, five measures were calculated: travel time to the nearest health care facility, density of health care facilities (number facilities within a 30-min walking distance from the district of residence), and three indices based on the two-step floating catchment area method. Three-level logistic regression modeling with random intercepts for household and district of residence was performed. Of the five measures, density of health care facilities was the most compatible according to Akaike’s information criterion. Both low density and low income were associated with decreased utilization of the health check-ups. Furthermore, a linear relationship was observed between the density of facilities and utilization of the health check-ups in all income groups and its slope was significantly steeper among subjects with an equivalent income of 0.00 yen than among those with equivalent income of 1.01–2.00 million yen (p = 0.028) or 2.01 million yen or more (p = 0.040). This result indicated that subjects with lower incomes were more susceptible to the effects of geographic accessibility than were those with higher incomes. Thus, better geographic accessibility could increase the health check-up utilization and also decrease the income-related disparity of utilization.</p></div

Kaplan–Meier curve.

(a) All-cause mortality for patients in the TEVAR, OR, and medication groups. (b) All-cause mortality for propensity-matched patients who underwent TEVAR and received medication. (c) All-cause mortality for propensity-matched patients who underwent TEVAR and OR. (d) All-cause mortality for propensity-matched patients who received medication and underwent OR. TEVAR, thoracic endovascular aortic repair; OR, open aortic repair.</p

Kaplan–Meier curve based on different time periods.

All-cause mortality for patients in the early (2004–2015) and late periods (2016–2021).</p

S3 Data -

BackgroundThe most appropriate surgical method for patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) in the chronic phase remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with UTBAD who needed aortic treatment as well as the impact of the treatment method or indication criteria on their prognosis.MethodsThis retrospective review of 106 consecutive patients with aortic events in the chronic phase who underwent initial treatment for UTBAD between 2004 and 2021 comprised three groups: 19 patients who underwent endovascular repair (TEVAR), 38 who underwent open aortic repair and the medication group that included 49 patients. Aortic events were defined as a late operation or indication for operation for dissected aorta, aortic diameter (AD) ≥ 55 mm, rapid aortic enlargement (≥5 mm/6 months), and saccular aneurysmal change. The endpoint was all-cause death. We assessed the association between treatment methods or surgical indication criteria and mortality using a Cox regression analysis.ResultsThe 5-year actuarial mortality rates were 27.1% in the TEVAR group, 19.6% in the open aortic repair group, and 38.4% in the medication group (p = 0.86). Moreover, the 5-year actuarial mortality rates in patients who had AD ≥ 55 mm were significantly higher than those patients with other surgical indication criteria (41.2% vs. 18.7%, p p p ConclusionsUnder the existing surgical indication criteria, there was no difference in mortality rates among patients with UTBAD based on their surgical treatment.</div

S1 File -

BackgroundThe most appropriate surgical method for patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) in the chronic phase remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with UTBAD who needed aortic treatment as well as the impact of the treatment method or indication criteria on their prognosis.MethodsThis retrospective review of 106 consecutive patients with aortic events in the chronic phase who underwent initial treatment for UTBAD between 2004 and 2021 comprised three groups: 19 patients who underwent endovascular repair (TEVAR), 38 who underwent open aortic repair and the medication group that included 49 patients. Aortic events were defined as a late operation or indication for operation for dissected aorta, aortic diameter (AD) ≥ 55 mm, rapid aortic enlargement (≥5 mm/6 months), and saccular aneurysmal change. The endpoint was all-cause death. We assessed the association between treatment methods or surgical indication criteria and mortality using a Cox regression analysis.ResultsThe 5-year actuarial mortality rates were 27.1% in the TEVAR group, 19.6% in the open aortic repair group, and 38.4% in the medication group (p = 0.86). Moreover, the 5-year actuarial mortality rates in patients who had AD ≥ 55 mm were significantly higher than those patients with other surgical indication criteria (41.2% vs. 18.7%, p p p ConclusionsUnder the existing surgical indication criteria, there was no difference in mortality rates among patients with UTBAD based on their surgical treatment.</div

S1 Checklist -

BackgroundThe most appropriate surgical method for patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) in the chronic phase remains controversial. This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with UTBAD who needed aortic treatment as well as the impact of the treatment method or indication criteria on their prognosis.MethodsThis retrospective review of 106 consecutive patients with aortic events in the chronic phase who underwent initial treatment for UTBAD between 2004 and 2021 comprised three groups: 19 patients who underwent endovascular repair (TEVAR), 38 who underwent open aortic repair and the medication group that included 49 patients. Aortic events were defined as a late operation or indication for operation for dissected aorta, aortic diameter (AD) ≥ 55 mm, rapid aortic enlargement (≥5 mm/6 months), and saccular aneurysmal change. The endpoint was all-cause death. We assessed the association between treatment methods or surgical indication criteria and mortality using a Cox regression analysis.ResultsThe 5-year actuarial mortality rates were 27.1% in the TEVAR group, 19.6% in the open aortic repair group, and 38.4% in the medication group (p = 0.86). Moreover, the 5-year actuarial mortality rates in patients who had AD ≥ 55 mm were significantly higher than those patients with other surgical indication criteria (41.2% vs. 18.7%, p p p ConclusionsUnder the existing surgical indication criteria, there was no difference in mortality rates among patients with UTBAD based on their surgical treatment.</div

Kaplan–Meier curve based on surgical indication criteria.

(a) All-cause mortality among patients with AD ≥ 55 mm, patients with saccular aneurysmal change, and patients with rapid aortic enlargement. (b) All-cause mortality of patients with AD ≥ 55 mm in the TEVAR, OR, and medication groups. (c) All-cause mortality of patients with AD < 55 mm in the TEVAR, OR, and medication groups. AD, aortic diameter; TEVAR, thoracic endovascular aortic repair; OR, open aortic repair.</p