Trimarchi, Santi

Background: Shock is a highly dreaded complication of type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD). However, few data exist on its incidence and association with prognosis. Methods: We evaluated 2704 TAAAD patients [mean age 61.4 ± 14.5, (67.6%) male] from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. Results: Shock was present at arrival in 407 (15.1%) TAAAD patients. These patients demonstrated no difference in age (61.5 ± 15.2 with shock vs. 61.4 ± 14.4 years without; p=0.873), but were more likely to have history of hypertension (83.1% vs. 73.0%; p<0.001), atherosclerosis (36.5% vs. 21.7%, p<0.001) and diabetes (12.3% vs. 7.0%, p=0.001) than patients without shock. They had more surgical management (90.9% vs. 86.0%; p=0.007). In-hospital complications such as hypotension (49.8% vs. 28.6%; p<0.001), coma (11.4% vs. 5.8%; p<0.001), tamponade (33.6% vs. 18.2%; p<0.001) and myocardial ischemia/infarction (19.7% vs. 13.7%; p=0.006) were more common among shock patients. Overall in-hospital mortality (30.2% vs. 23.9%; p=0.007) and mortality by management (surgical: 24.6% vs. 19.1%; p=0.015; medical: 88.9% vs. 53.3%, p<0.001) were higher among shock patients. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality in shock patients are displayed in Table 1. Among hospital survivors, Kaplan-Meier estimates of follow-up mortality were similar between groups (p=0.609). Conclusions: Shock occurred in 15.1% of patients with TAAAD and was associated with increased in-hospital morbidity and mortality, but not long-term mortality.

Introduction/Purpose: To examine trends in patient presentation, diagnosis and outcomes of acute aortic dissection over 15 years since the original report from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). Methods: Patient data were collected at 28 international referral centers from 1996 up to the present. Trends were analyzed among 3275 patients divided according to date of enrollment into 6 equal groups and by Type: A (n=2110) or B (n=1165). Results: There was no change over time in the presenting complaints of severe or worst ever pain for Type A and Type B (90% and 96%, respectively), or in the incidence of chest pain ( 80% in Type A and 70% in Type B, respectively), with considerable overlap in chest vs. back pain between types. The report of pulse deficits did not change over time, present in 30% of Type A patients. Normal chest X-ray on presentation increased in Type A acute aortic dissection (AoD) from 13.7% to 31.3% over time (p-value for trend <0.001). In Type B the report of normal chest X-ray increased from 19.9% to 40.9% (p-value for trend <0.001). There were significant trends in initial imaging modalities for Type A: increased use of CT (from 49.4% to 71.6%, p-value for trend <0.001) and decreased use of TEE (from 45.3% to 25.4%, p-value for trend <0.001). For Type B, use of CT increased from 77.2% to 88.4% (p-value for trend .013). A decrease in overall mortality over time was significant for both Type A and Type B patients (see graph). Surgical mortality in Type A patients fell from 25.3% to 16.5% (p-value for trend 0 .003). Conclusions: No significant difference was seen over time in pain severity, chest pain, and presence of pulse deficits. The incidences of a normal chest X-ray, originally thought to be uncommon in dissection cases, increased over time to 30% in Type A and 40% in Type B AoD. Use of CT as the initial imaging modality increased for both Type A and Type B. Lastly, a significant decrease in overall mortality was seen for both Type A and Type B patients.

Background: The debate for the optimal treatment of complicated Type B Acute Aortic Dissection (TBAAD) is primarily focused upon open surgical intervention versus thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The technique of fenestration with stenting has been proposed to resolve malperfusion. This study evaluated post-procedural outcomes of all three approaches for TBAAD. Methods: TBAAD patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection were stratified by management type: TEVAR, fenestration and stenting, and surgery. Results: Of the 552 patients with TBAAD, 231 (41.8%) underwent TEVAR, 214 (38.8%) standard open surgery, and 107 (19.4%) fenestration and stenting. TEVAR or fenestration and stenting were more likely to be performed in classic double barrel aortic dissection when compared to open surgery (73.2%, 76.6%, 52.8% respectively; p<0.001). Patients treated with open repair were less likely to have distal extension into the abdominal aorta than those with TEVAR or fenestration and stenting (47.7%, 62.7%, 86.4%, respectively; p<0.001). In-hospital mortality was similar between groups (11.7% TEVAR, 14.0% fenestration and stenting, 15.9% surgery). At five years, Kaplan-Meier post-discharge all-cause survival estimates were highest for TEVAR, followed by endovascular fenestration and finally open surgical intervention (85.2%, 78.3%, 67.2%, respectively; p=0.039). Conclusion: Patients treated by endovascular approaches, whether with flap fenestration or thoracic endovascular aortic repair, had lower five year mortality when compared to patients who required open repair in the setting of TBAAD. Either endovascular approach may be helpful in the treatment of TBAAD. Further research is needed to determine how much of the observed difference represents patient selection versus differential effects of treatment.

Background— Studies of aortic aneurysm patients have shown that the risk of rupture increases with aortic size. However, few studies of acute aortic dissection patients and aortic size exist. We used data from our registry of acute aortic dissection patients to better understand the relationship between aortic diameter and type A dissection. Methods and Results— We examined 591 type A dissection patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection between 1996 and 2005 (mean age, 60.8 years). Maximum aortic diameters averaged 5.3 cm; 349 (59%) patients had aortic diameters <5.5 cm and 229 (40%) patients had aortic diameters <5.0 cm. Independent predictors of dissection at smaller diameters (<5.5 cm) included a history of hypertension (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 4.57; P =0.04), radiating pain (odds ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 4.0; P =0.03), and increasing age (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.05; P =0.03). Marfan syndrome patients were more likely to dissect at larger diameters (odds ratio, 14.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 100; P =0.002). Mortality (27% of patients) was not related to aortic size. Conclusions— The majority of patients with acute type A acute aortic dissection present with aortic diameters <5.5 cm and thus do not fall within current guidelines for elective aneurysm surgery. Methods other than size measurement of the ascending aorta are needed to identify patients at risk for dissection.

Background— The clinical profiles and outcomes of patients treated surgically for acute type B aortic dissection (ABAD) are often reported for those in small series or for those cared for at a single institution over a long time period, during which a continuous evolution in techniques has occurred. Accordingly, we sought to evaluate the clinical features and surgical results of patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection by identifying primary factors that influenced surgical outcome and estimating average surgical mortality for ABAD in the current era. Methods and Results— A comprehensive analysis of 290 clinical variables and their relation to surgical outcomes for 82 patients who required surgery for ABAD (from a population of 1256 patients; mean±SD age, 60.6±15.0 years; 82.9% male) and who were enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection was performed. The overall in-hospital mortality was 29.3%. Factors associated with increased surgical mortality based on univariate analysis were preoperative coma or altered consciousness, partial thrombosis of the false lumen, evidence of periaortic hematoma on diagnostic imaging, descending aortic diameter >6 cm, right ventricle dysfunction at surgery, and shorter time from the onset of symptoms to surgery. Factors associated with favorable outcomes included radiating pain, normotension at surgery (systolic blood pressure 100 to 149 mm Hg), and reduced hypothermic circulatory arrest time. The 2 independent predictors of surgical mortality were age >70 years (odds ratio, 4.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.30 to 14.34) and preoperative shock/hypotension (odds ratio, 6.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 32.49). Conclusions— The present study provides insights into current-day clinical profiles and surgical outcomes of ABAD. Knowledge about different preoperative clinical conditions may help surgeons in making treatment decisions among these high-risk patients.