Aortic DissectionSUNDAYNCT05215587
Scandinavian Trial of Uncomplicated Aortic Dissection Therapy
A study testing TEVAR in people with Aortic Dissection, run by University of Aarhus at 28 sites in 6 countries.
Trial summary
The introduction of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in 1994 has radically changed the treatment of thoracic aortic pathology, and TEVAR is now the recommended therapy for "complicated" TBADs and other thoracic aorta diseases. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Aortic Dissection
- What is being tested?
- TEVAR
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 554 participants
- Where
- 28 sitesin 6 countries
- Study dates
- 24 May 2023to 31 Dec 2030
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All subjects, aged 18 or greater at the time of informed consent, admitted or referred to the participating vascular surgery site with an uTBAD of less than four weeks duration.
Who cannot join
- Subjects with no signed informed consent.
- Subjects presenting with a complicated type B aortic dissection according to the above definition.
- Subjects previously treated in their descending aorta, either open surgery or TEVAR.
- Subjects with pre-existing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.
- Subjects with other aortic pathology with an indication for intervention that requires TEVAR.
- Subjects with traumatic aortic dissections.
Show all 12Show fewer
- Subjects with an established connective tissue disease at the time of randomization, including but not limited to Marfans and Loeys-Dietz syndrome.
- Subjects with a clinically estimated life expectancy < 2 years.
- Subjects with dementia.
- Pregnant or nursing subjects.
- Subjects with current sepsis.
- Subjects currently participating in other clinical interventional trials.
Trial locations and contacts
28 sites in 6 countries. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
28 sites in 6 countries
Netherlands7 sites, 7 recruiting
- Not yet recruiting
Amsterdam University Medical Center (AUMC)
Amsterdam
Kak Khee Yeung, MD, PhD, prof., k.yeung@amsterdamumc.nl
- Not yet recruiting
University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG)
Groningen
Jean-Paul de Vries, MD, PhD, prof., j.p.p.m.de.vries@umcg.nl
- Recruiting
Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC)
Leiden
Joost van der Vorst, MD, PhD, j.r.van_der_vorst@lumc.nl
- Not yet recruiting
Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC)
Maastricht
Barend Mees, MD, PhD, prof., barend.mees@mumc.nl
- Not yet recruiting
Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc)
Nijmegen
Mark Dirven, MD, mark.dirven@radboudumc.nl
- Not yet recruiting
Erasmus Medical Center (EMC)
Rotterdam
Jorg de Bruin, MD, PhD, j.debruin@erasmusmc.nl
- Not yet recruiting
University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU)
Utrecht
Martin Teraa, MD, PhD, m.teraa@umcutrecht.nl
Sweden7 sites, 6 recruiting
- Recruiting
Sahlgrenska University Hospital
Gothenburg
Sofia Stromberg, MD PhD, sofia.stromberg@vgregion.se
- Recruiting
Linköping University Hospital
Linköping
Robert Lind, MD, robert.lind@regionostergotland.se
- Recruiting
Skånes University Hospital
Malmö
Nuno Dias, MD, PhD, nuno.dias@med.lu.se
- Active, not recruiting
Örebro University Hospital
Örebro
- Recruiting
Karolinska University Hospital
Stockholm
Rebecka Hultgren, MD, PhD, rebecka.hultgren@ki.se
- Recruiting
Sodersjukhuset
Stockholm
Johnny Steuer, MD, PhD, johnny.steuer@regionstockholm.se
- Recruiting
Uppsala University Hospital
Uppsala
Kevin Mani, MD PhD, kevin.mani@uu.se
Finland5 sites, 5 recruiting
- Recruiting
Helsinki University Hospital
Helsinki
Mikko Jormalainen, MD PhD
Patrick Björkman, MD PhD
- Not yet recruiting
Kuopio University Hospital
Kuopio
Petri Saari, MD PhD, petri.saari@pshyvinvointialue.fi
- Not yet recruiting
Oulu University Hospital
Oulu
Juho Kariniemi, MD PhD, juho.kariniemi@ppshp.fi
- Recruiting
Tampere University Hospital
Tampere
Velipekka Suominen, MD PhD, velipekka.suominen@pirha.fi
- Recruiting
Turku University Hospital
Turku
Veikko Nikulainen, MD PhD, vpjnik@utu.fi
Denmark4 sites, 4 recruiting
- Recruiting
Aalborg University Hospital
Aalborg
Christian N Petersen, MD, chnp@rn.dk
- Recruiting
Aarhus University Hospital
Aarhus, 8200
Jacob W Budtz-Lilly, MD, PhD, 24778914, jacoblilly@clin.au.dk
- Recruiting
Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospital
Copenhagen
Tim Resch, MD, PhD, timothy.andrew.resch@regionh.dk
- Recruiting
Odense University Hospital
Odense
Jes S Lindholt, MD, PhD, jslindholt@health.sdu.dk
Norway4 sites, 4 recruiting
- Recruiting
Haukeland University Hospital
Bergen
Rune Haaverstad, MD PhD, 47 559 70520, rune.haaverstad@uib.no
- Recruiting
Oslo University Hospital
Oslo
Eric J Dorenberg, MD PhD, edorenbe@ous-hf.no
Beate R Lindberg, MD
- Recruiting
University Hospital Nord
Tromsø
Knut E Kjørstad, MD PhD, knut.eivind.kjorstad@unn.no
- Recruiting
St Olavs Hospital
Trondheim
Martin E Altreuther, MD PhD, Martin.Altreuther@stolav.no
Iceland1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Landspitali University Hospital
Reykjavik
Oscar D Bermeo, MD, oscard@landspitali.is
About this study
The introduction of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in 1994 has radically changed the treatment of thoracic aortic pathology, and TEVAR is now the recommended therapy for "complicated" TBADs and other thoracic aorta diseases. To date, the use of TEVAR in the treatment of "uncomplicated" dissections (uTBAD) is uncertain, although it is presumed that a prophylactic procedure can prevent later complex surgery and early death. Several analyses have found that TEVAR confers improved aortic remodeling and possibly survival, although these were underpowered for this specific outcome. In addition, there are several reports regarding the uncertain benefit or harm of this intervention in the vascular surgery community. Put another way, there is equipoise, and the need for robust evidence in the form of a randomized clinical trial has been clearly iterated by the European Society of Vascular Surgery.
This randomized, open-label, two-armed controlled study directly addresses this question of whether TEVAR alters 5-year survival among patients with an uTBAD. Patients will be randomized to either standard medical therapy (SMT) alone or TEVAR in addition to SMT. The primary outcome is 5-year survival, while secondary outcomes include aortic-related mortality, neurological events, quality of life, costs, re interventions and readmissions. in addition, subgroup analyses based on the extent of treatment.
Sample size calculations based on previous reports indicate the need to include approximately 554 patients. Patients will be recruited from multiple centres in Scandinavia. Based on the population (24 million) and incidence of uTBAD (approximately 480 per year), and depending on the total number of participating centres, a conservative estimate of two to three years is required for enrolment.
Read the detailed description
This randomized, open-label, two-armed controlled study addresses the question of whether thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) alters 5-year survival among patients with an uncomplicated Stanford type-B aortic dissection (uTBAD). Patients will be randomized to either standard medical therapy (SMT) alone or TEVAR in addition to SMT. The primary outcome is 5-year survival, while secondary outcomes include aortic-related mortality, neurological events, quality of life, costs, re interventions and readmissions. in addition, subgroup analyses based on the extent of treatment.
Primary hypothesis:
The null hypothesis for this trial states that the five-year survival results for patients treated with either SMT or SMT + TEVAR are equivalent.
- Background
The incidence of a Stanford type-B thoracic aortic dissection (TBAD) is estimated at 3.9 - 6.0 per 100,000 person years, although this may be an underestimate. These account for approximately 30-40% of all types of aorta dissection. The diagnosis of TBAD is further classified with respect to time: acute, ≤ 14 days, subacute, 15-90 days, and chronic, > 90 days. Approximately 40-50% of ABDs are considered complicated which, according to the European Society of Vascular Surgery, is defined as the presence of one or more of the following: rupture and/or hypotension/shock, organ malperfusion, rapid aortic expansion, paraplegia/paraparesis, peri-aortic haematoma, or intractable pain or hypertension. In the absence of these complications, the dissection is considered uncomplicated. In-hospital survival for these patients has been reported as approximately 90%.
The management of TBADs is dependent upon the above-mentioned factors, i.e., complicated or uncomplicated, acute or chronic, as well as accompanying comorbidities. An underlying and universal component for all these patients is optimal medical therapy, which includes antihypertensive therapy, typically beta-blockers, in order to mitigate aortic wall stress and false lumen pressures, as well as pain relief. Furthermore, lifestyle improvements and cardiovascular risk profile modification are recommended.
The introduction of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in 1994 radically changed the treatment of thoracic aortic pathology, and TEVAR is now the recommended therapy for complicated TBADs, thoracic aortic aneurysms, and traumatic thoracic transections, among others. To date, the use of TEVAR in the treatment of uncomplicated TBAD is uncertain, if not controversial. Several analyses have found that TEVAR confers improved aortic remodeling and possibly survival, albeit with the implied and inherent procedural risks of intervention, including paraplegia, retrograde dissection, and death.
There are two relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs), addressing the issue of early TEVAR among TBAD patients. The Acute Dissection: Stent graft OR Best medical therapy (ADSORB) trial, notably underpowered, randomized a total of 61 patients from 17 European centres with acute uTBAD. There were no aortic ruptures at 1-year in either arm of the trial, while TEVAR was associated with improved thrombosis of the false lumen and reduction of its lumen. The Investigation of Stent Grafts in Aortic Dissection (INSTEAD) trial included 140 patients in the subacute phase. The overall survival at two years was statistically equivalent, 95.6% in the medical arm and 88.9% in the TEVAR plus medicine group. The long-terms results from the extended INSTEAD-XL found a non-significant absolute reduction in all-cause mortality of 8.2% at five years for those patients who underwent TEVAR.
The conclusions from the retrospective and above-mentioned RCTs have not been persuasive enough for the European Society of Vascular Surgery to render a higher recommendation than "TEVAR may be selectively considered" for those patients presenting with uncomplicated type B aortic dissections. This is furthermore echoed by a recent international survey regarding preferred treatment of uTBAD, in which 54.8% of respondents answered that they do not routinely use TEVAR, as opposed to 37.4% who prefer this strategy; moreover, 88.6% of respondents agreed that equipoise was present and that an RCT was warranted.
Research Objectives
Primary Objective
- To compare the overall survival at five years between subjects treated with SMT or SMT + subacute TEVAR.
Secondary Objectives
- To compare the risk of aortic-related mortality.
- To compare the risk of neurological injury, including stroke or paraplegia.
- To compare the proportion and indication of subjects who underwent an aortic intervention within 5 years due to development of an aortic complication.
- To compare the number of disease-related readmissions during follow-up.
- To compare, based on subgroup analyses, whether extent of TEVAR is associated with either improved survival or neurological injury.
- To compare the associated risk of reinterventions, including those subjects who were initially randomized to SMT and subsequently required an aortic intervention.
- To compare the associated changes in quality-of-life.
- To compare the 10-year overall survival and aortic-related mortality.
- To compare the costs.
Endpoint Definitions
Primary endpoint:
All-cause mortality.
Secondary endpoints:
Aortic-related mortality: Death as a result from aortic rupture or organ malperfusion, or death due to aortic intervention.
Aortic intervention: Any open surgical or endovascular intervention performed in any anatomical location, performed for the following indications, which are related to the aortic pathology: aneurysmal degeneration, visceral ischemia, lower extremity ischemia, rupture, or any of the criteria listed above under the definition of a complicated TBAD.
Neurological injury: These are divided into two categories: cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) and spinal cord ischemia (SCI). CVAs are defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards and classified as any central neurological complication, ischemic and hemorrhagic. For this project, the modified Rankin scale will be used for classifying stroke severity. Spinal cord ischemia is defined as either ischemic or hemorrhagic resulting in paraparesis or paraplegia. The modified Tarlov scoring scale will be used for the grading of any spinal cord injuries.
Reintervention: Any open or endovascular intervention after the original TEVAR procedure that was related to the dissection. These should be categorized as either planned reintervention, e.g., a staged procedure, or unplanned, which indicates a complication from the original procedure, a failure of the device, or progression of disease.
Quality of life: The quality of life will be assessed with the three following self-assessment forms:
- The EuroQOL-5D-5L instrument from the EuroQol Group, comprised of five dimensions with five levels of scoring that can be combined into a five-digit number of description.
- The Hospital and Anxiety Depression Score (HADS).
- The 12-Item Short-Form (12-SF) Health Survey.
Economic evaluation: The economic evaluation will be performed from a payer/healthcare point of view, including resource use associated with healthcare, intervention and medication, whereas broader potential consequences for society, i.e., effects on productivity, will not be included. During the course of the trial, the accumulated costs will be measured per treatment arm from the participating hospital´s administrative/controlling/billing systems. As far as possible, the following resource use items will be included and captured as accumulated costs from the hospital's cost-per- subject system on all outpatient and inpatient visits:
- costs for healthcare staff
- subject -specific costs for primary and secondary endovascular and surgical procedures postoperative care unit costs
- costs of drugs during surgery and postoperative care
- costs of anaesthetic procedures and blood transfusions
- additional diagnostic procedures from the radiology and clinical physiology departments and from clinical chemistry.
The costs for healthcare staff will comprise the full wage costs, including costs for social security. Costs for each endovascular and surgical procedure will be retrieved individually, and, as far as possible, be based on the price per minute according to the hospital's cost-per- subject systems.
Changes in health status will be assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which combine the time spent in a specific health state with the corresponding self-assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL), as derived from the EuroQOL EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Time is measured in years and the HRQoL is measured on an index scale ranging from 0 (equivalent to being dead) to 1 (best possible health state). The total number of QALYs will be calculated by multiplying the HRQoL index score (QALY weight) by the time spent in each health state. Group differences in total costs will be calculated and divided by the difference in QALYs in the interval from baseline until end of study, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated as follows:
(CostTEVAR -CostSMT)/(QALYsTEVAR - QALYsSMT)=ΔCost/ΔQALY.
Rationale for objectives and endpoint selection
Despite evidence from retrospective and descriptive studies suggesting long-term benefits for early TEVAR intervention among uTBAD subjects, the underlying unanswered question is whether TEVAR confers a benefit of survival. The two previous RCTs, mentioned above, were underpowered to address this issue. Despite potential theoretical and procedural advantages of various composite endpoints, it was determined that a trial based on a clearly expressed question with a binary outcome will have the most clinical impact. Similarly, focus on the albeit interesting, but not essential, endpoint of aortic morphological changes and imaging findings, would complicate the pragmatic design of this trial.
Study Design
The trial is a randomized, open label, clinical trial with parallel assignment of subjects in multiple sites in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Finland. Recruited subjects will be randomized to either SMT exclusively or TEVAR + SMT.
- Conditions
- Aortic Dissection
- Being tested
- TEVAR
- Keywords
- Aortic; dissection; TEVAR; endovascular; vascular
- Medical subject headings
- Aortic Dissection
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
TEVARDevice
Also called Thoracic aortic endovascular repair stent graft
A TEVAR stent graft will be placed in the descending aorta in order to cover the primary entry of the dissection.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Medical Therapy | No intervention | Patients will be treated with standard medical therapy, i.e., antihypertensives, pulse-rate regulators, and pain medication. |
| Stent Therapy | Active comparator | Patients will be treated with both standard medical therapy, in addition to placement of a thoracic endovascular aortic repair stent graft. Receives: Device: TEVAR |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Survival
Overall survival
Measured: Five years
Secondary outcomes (6)
Aortic-related mortality
Death as a result from aortic rupture or organ malperfusion, or death due to aortic intervention.
Measured: Five years
Neurological injury
Cerebrovascular accidents and/or spinal cord ischemia
Measured: Five years
Reintervention
The number of open or endovascular interventions after the original TEVAR, including crossovers, that were related to the dissection. Categorised as planned or unplanned.
Measured: Five years
EuroQOL-5D-5L
Quality of life
Measured: Five years
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score
Psychological distress
Measured: Five years
12-Item Short Form Health Survey
Physical and mental health functioning
Measured: Five years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 Jan 2022
- Study start24 May 2023
- Primary completion31 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2030 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Aortic DissectionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of AarhusThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- The trial is a randomized, open label, clinical trial with parallel assignment of patients in multiple centres in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. Recruited subjects will undergo stratified randomization based on the centre to either a control or intervention arm.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 554 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Aarhus
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- The Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Jacob W Budtz-Lilly, MD PhD, Principal investigator, Aarhus University HospitalKevin Mani, MD PhD, Principal investigator, Uppsala University Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05215587
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 8240
- Acronym
- SUNDAY
- Status last verified
- Mar 2025
- First submitted
- 17 Jan 2022
- Last updated
- 11 Aug 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No: There is no plan to share individual patient data with other researchers outside the trial.
Publications
Rudolph C, Lindberg BR, Resch T, Mani K, Bjorkman P, Laxdal EH, Stovring H, Beck HM, Eriksson G, Budtz-Lilly J. Scandinavian trial of uncomplicated aortic dissection therapy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2023 Mar 23;24(1):217. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07255-7.
PubMed 36949478
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Aug 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Scandinavian Trial of Uncomplicated Aortic Dissection Therapy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05215587
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SUNDAY / 8240
- Conditions
- Aortic Dissection
- Keywords
- Aortic; dissection; TEVAR; endovascular; vascular
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 554 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AarhusUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- The Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart Lung Foundation
- Study start
- 24 May 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2030 (estimated)
- First posted
- 31 Jan 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The introduction of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in 1994 has radically changed the treatment of thoracic aortic pathology, and TEVAR is now the recommended therapy for "complicated" TBADs and other thoracic aorta diseases. To date, the use of TEVAR in the treatment of "uncomplicated" dissections (uTBAD) is uncertain, although it is presumed that a prophylactic procedure can prevent later complex surgery and early death. Several analyses have found that TEVAR confers improved aortic remodeling and possibly survival, although these were underpowered for this specific outcome. In addition, there are several reports regarding the uncertain benefit or harm of this intervention in the vascular surgery community. Put another way, there is equipoise, and the need for robust evidence in the form of a randomized clinical trial has been clearly iterated by the European Society of Vascular Surgery.
This randomized, open-label, two-armed controlled study directly addresses this question of whether TEVAR alters 5-year survival among patients with an uTBAD. Patients will be randomized to either standard medical therapy (SMT) alone or TEVAR in addition to SMT. The primary outcome is 5-year survival, while secondary outcomes include aortic-related mortality, neurological events, quality of life, costs, re interventions and readmissions. in addition, subgroup analyses based on the extent of treatment.
Sample size calculations based on previous reports indicate the need to include approximately 554 patients. Patients will be recruited from multiple centres in Scandinavia. Based on the population (24 million) and incidence of uTBAD (approximately 480 per year), and depending on the total number of participating centres, a conservative estimate of two to three years is required for enrolment.
Detailed description
This randomized, open-label, two-armed controlled study addresses the question of whether thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) alters 5-year survival among patients with an uncomplicated Stanford type-B aortic dissection (uTBAD). Patients will be randomized to either standard medical therapy (SMT) alone or TEVAR in addition to SMT. The primary outcome is 5-year survival, while secondary outcomes include aortic-related mortality, neurological events, quality of life, costs, re interventions and readmissions. in addition, subgroup analyses based on the extent of treatment.
Primary hypothesis:
The null hypothesis for this trial states that the five-year survival results for patients treated with either SMT or SMT + TEVAR are equivalent.
- Background
The incidence of a Stanford type-B thoracic aortic dissection (TBAD) is estimated at 3.9 - 6.0 per 100,000 person years, although this may be an underestimate. These account for approximately 30-40% of all types of aorta dissection. The diagnosis of TBAD is further classified with respect to time: acute, ≤ 14 days, subacute, 15-90 days, and chronic, > 90 days. Approximately 40-50% of ABDs are considered complicated which, according to the European Society of Vascular Surgery, is defined as the presence of one or more of the following: rupture and/or hypotension/shock, organ malperfusion, rapid aortic expansion, paraplegia/paraparesis, peri-aortic haematoma, or intractable pain or hypertension. In the absence of these complications, the dissection is considered uncomplicated. In-hospital survival for these patients has been reported as approximately 90%.
The management of TBADs is dependent upon the above-mentioned factors, i.e., complicated or uncomplicated, acute or chronic, as well as accompanying comorbidities. An underlying and universal component for all these patients is optimal medical therapy, which includes antihypertensive therapy, typically beta-blockers, in order to mitigate aortic wall stress and false lumen pressures, as well as pain relief. Furthermore, lifestyle improvements and cardiovascular risk profile modification are recommended.
The introduction of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in 1994 radically changed the treatment of thoracic aortic pathology, and TEVAR is now the recommended therapy for complicated TBADs, thoracic aortic aneurysms, and traumatic thoracic transections, among others. To date, the use of TEVAR in the treatment of uncomplicated TBAD is uncertain, if not controversial. Several analyses have found that TEVAR confers improved aortic remodeling and possibly survival, albeit with the implied and inherent procedural risks of intervention, including paraplegia, retrograde dissection, and death.
There are two relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs), addressing the issue of early TEVAR among TBAD patients. The Acute Dissection: Stent graft OR Best medical therapy (ADSORB) trial, notably underpowered, randomized a total of 61 patients from 17 European centres with acute uTBAD. There were no aortic ruptures at 1-year in either arm of the trial, while TEVAR was associated with improved thrombosis of the false lumen and reduction of its lumen. The Investigation of Stent Grafts in Aortic Dissection (INSTEAD) trial included 140 patients in the subacute phase. The overall survival at two years was statistically equivalent, 95.6% in the medical arm and 88.9% in the TEVAR plus medicine group. The long-terms results from the extended INSTEAD-XL found a non-significant absolute reduction in all-cause mortality of 8.2% at five years for those patients who underwent TEVAR.
The conclusions from the retrospective and above-mentioned RCTs have not been persuasive enough for the European Society of Vascular Surgery to render a higher recommendation than "TEVAR may be selectively considered" for those patients presenting with uncomplicated type B aortic dissections. This is furthermore echoed by a recent international survey regarding preferred treatment of uTBAD, in which 54.8% of respondents answered that they do not routinely use TEVAR, as opposed to 37.4% who prefer this strategy; moreover, 88.6% of respondents agreed that equipoise was present and that an RCT was warranted.
Research Objectives
Primary Objective
- To compare the overall survival at five years between subjects treated with SMT or SMT + subacute TEVAR.
Secondary Objectives
- To compare the risk of aortic-related mortality.
- To compare the risk of neurological injury, including stroke or paraplegia.
- To compare the proportion and indication of subjects who underwent an aortic intervention within 5 years due to development of an aortic complication.
- To compare the number of disease-related readmissions during follow-up.
- To compare, based on subgroup analyses, whether extent of TEVAR is associated with either improved survival or neurological injury.
- To compare the associated risk of reinterventions, including those subjects who were initially randomized to SMT and subsequently required an aortic intervention.
- To compare the associated changes in quality-of-life.
- To compare the 10-year overall survival and aortic-related mortality.
- To compare the costs.
Endpoint Definitions
Primary endpoint:
All-cause mortality.
Secondary endpoints:
Aortic-related mortality: Death as a result from aortic rupture or organ malperfusion, or death due to aortic intervention.
Aortic intervention: Any open surgical or endovascular intervention performed in any anatomical location, performed for the following indications, which are related to the aortic pathology: aneurysmal degeneration, visceral ischemia, lower extremity ischemia, rupture, or any of the criteria listed above under the definition of a complicated TBAD.
Neurological injury: These are divided into two categories: cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) and spinal cord ischemia (SCI). CVAs are defined according to the Society for Vascular Surgery reporting standards and classified as any central neurological complication, ischemic and hemorrhagic. For this project, the modified Rankin scale will be used for classifying stroke severity. Spinal cord ischemia is defined as either ischemic or hemorrhagic resulting in paraparesis or paraplegia. The modified Tarlov scoring scale will be used for the grading of any spinal cord injuries.
Reintervention: Any open or endovascular intervention after the original TEVAR procedure that was related to the dissection. These should be categorized as either planned reintervention, e.g., a staged procedure, or unplanned, which indicates a complication from the original procedure, a failure of the device, or progression of disease.
Quality of life: The quality of life will be assessed with the three following self-assessment forms:
- The EuroQOL-5D-5L instrument from the EuroQol Group, comprised of five dimensions with five levels of scoring that can be combined into a five-digit number of description.
- The Hospital and Anxiety Depression Score (HADS).
- The 12-Item Short-Form (12-SF) Health Survey.
Economic evaluation: The economic evaluation will be performed from a payer/healthcare point of view, including resource use associated with healthcare, intervention and medication, whereas broader potential consequences for society, i.e., effects on productivity, will not be included. During the course of the trial, the accumulated costs will be measured per treatment arm from the participating hospital´s administrative/controlling/billing systems. As far as possible, the following resource use items will be included and captured as accumulated costs from the hospital's cost-per- subject system on all outpatient and inpatient visits:
- costs for healthcare staff
- subject -specific costs for primary and secondary endovascular and surgical procedures postoperative care unit costs
- costs of drugs during surgery and postoperative care
- costs of anaesthetic procedures and blood transfusions
- additional diagnostic procedures from the radiology and clinical physiology departments and from clinical chemistry.
The costs for healthcare staff will comprise the full wage costs, including costs for social security. Costs for each endovascular and surgical procedure will be retrieved individually, and, as far as possible, be based on the price per minute according to the hospital's cost-per- subject systems.
Changes in health status will be assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which combine the time spent in a specific health state with the corresponding self-assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL), as derived from the EuroQOL EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Time is measured in years and the HRQoL is measured on an index scale ranging from 0 (equivalent to being dead) to 1 (best possible health state). The total number of QALYs will be calculated by multiplying the HRQoL index score (QALY weight) by the time spent in each health state. Group differences in total costs will be calculated and divided by the difference in QALYs in the interval from baseline until end of study, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated as follows:
(CostTEVAR -CostSMT)/(QALYsTEVAR - QALYsSMT)=ΔCost/ΔQALY.
Rationale for objectives and endpoint selection
Despite evidence from retrospective and descriptive studies suggesting long-term benefits for early TEVAR intervention among uTBAD subjects, the underlying unanswered question is whether TEVAR confers a benefit of survival. The two previous RCTs, mentioned above, were underpowered to address this issue. Despite potential theoretical and procedural advantages of various composite endpoints, it was determined that a trial based on a clearly expressed question with a binary outcome will have the most clinical impact. Similarly, focus on the albeit interesting, but not essential, endpoint of aortic morphological changes and imaging findings, would complicate the pragmatic design of this trial.
Study Design
The trial is a randomized, open label, clinical trial with parallel assignment of subjects in multiple sites in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Finland. Recruited subjects will be randomized to either SMT exclusively or TEVAR + SMT.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- The trial is a randomized, open label, clinical trial with parallel assignment of patients in multiple centres in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. Recruited subjects will undergo stratified randomization based on the centre to either a control or intervention arm.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Medical Therapy | No intervention | –Patients will be treated with standard medical therapy, i.e., antihypertensives, pulse-rate regulators, and pain medication. |
| Stent Therapy | Active comparator | Device: TEVARPatients will be treated with both standard medical therapy, in addition to placement of a thoracic endovascular aortic repair stent graft. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All subjects, aged 18 or greater at the time of informed consent, admitted or referred to the participating vascular surgery site with an uTBAD of less than four weeks duration.
Key exclusion criteria (12 listed)
- Subjects with no signed informed consent.
- Subjects presenting with a complicated type B aortic dissection according to the above definition.
- Subjects previously treated in their descending aorta, either open surgery or TEVAR.
- Subjects with pre-existing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.
- Subjects with other aortic pathology with an indication for intervention that requires TEVAR.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| TEVARAlso: Thoracic aortic endovascular repair stent graftA TEVAR stent graft will be placed in the descending aorta in order to cover the primary entry of the dissection. | Device | Stent Therapy |
Primary outcome
Survival
Time frame: Five years
Overall survival
6 secondary outcomes
Aortic-related mortality
Time frame: Five years
Neurological injury
Time frame: Five years
Reintervention
Time frame: Five years
EuroQOL-5D-5L
Time frame: Five years
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score
Time frame: Five years
12-Item Short Form Health Survey
Time frame: Five years
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Aug 2025.
- Background: PubMed 36949478Rudolph C, Lindberg BR, Resch T, Mani K, Bjorkman P, Laxdal EH, Stovring H, Beck HM, Eriksson G, Budtz-Lilly J. Scandinavian trial of uncomplicated aortic dissection therapy: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2023 Mar 23;24(1):217. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07255-7.
- HomepageLink provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. There is no plan to share individual patient data with other researchers outside the trial.
Related trials for Aortic Dissection
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
D2 Gastrectomy With or Without Para-Aortic Lymph Node Dissection After Chemoimmunotherapy for Gastric Cancer
Gastric Adenocarcinoma, Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Clinical Health Outcomes Evaluation of Terumo Aortic Hybrid Devices
Aortic Aneurysm and Dissection
Recruiting
GORE® TAG® Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis Zone 0/1 Post-Approval Study
Aortic Arch Dissection, Aortic Arch Aneurysm
RecruitingObservational study
Metabolic Phenotyping in vEDS
Vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Vascular Ehlers Danlos Syndrome
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Real-World Data Collection of GORE Devices Used In the Endovascular Treatment of Aortic Aneurysms Which Incorporate Visceral Arteries.
Complex Aortic Aneurysms, Thoracoabdominal Aneurysm
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Jacob W Budtz-Lilly, MD PhD principal investigator
Aarhus University Hospital
Kevin Mani, MD PhD principal investigator
Uppsala University Hospital
28 sites in 6 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing TEVAR in people with Aortic Dissection, run by University of Aarhus at 28 sites in 6 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 12 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Aug 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 28 sites in Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and 1 more country. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Jacob W Budtz-Lilly, MD PhD (45 28147705, jacoblilly@clin.au.dk), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Survival (time frame: Five years). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05215587, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Aug 2025.