Linda Pape

Long-term survival in patients presenting with type B acute aortic dissection: Insights from the international registry of acute aortic dissection

Background— Follow-up survival studies in patients with acute type B aortic dissection have been restricted to a small number of patients in single centers. We used data from a contemporary registry of acute type B aortic dissection to better understand factors associated with adverse long-term survival. Methods and Results— We examined 242 consecutive patients discharged alive with acute type B aortic dissection enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) between 1996 and 2003. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed, and Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of follow-up mortality. Three-year survival for patients treated medically, surgically, or with endovascular therapy was 77.6±6.6%, 82.8±18.9%, and 76.2±25.2%, respectively (median follow-up 2.3 years, log-rank P=0.61). Independent predictors of follow-up mortality included female gender (hazard ratio [HR], 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 3.71; P=0.03), a history of prior aortic aneurysm (HR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.03 to 4.59; P=0.04), a history of atherosclerosis (HR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.32 to 4.66; P<0.01), in-hospital renal failure (HR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.15 to 5.63; P=0.02), pleural effusion on chest radiograph (HR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.18 to 5.58; P=0.02), and in-hospital hypotension/shock (HR, 12.5; 95% CI, 3.24 to 48.21; P<0.01). Conclusions— Contemporary follow-up mortality in patients who survive to hospital discharge with acute type B aortic dissection is high, approaching 1 in every 4 patients at 3 years. Current treatment and follow-up surveillance require further study to better understand and optimize care for patients with this complex disease.

Aortic Diameter ≥5.5 cm Is Not a Good Predictor of Type A Aortic Dissection Observations From the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD)

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.

Acute Intramural Hematoma of the Aorta A Mystery in Evolution

Background—The definition, prevalence, outcomes, and appropriate treatment strategies for acute intramural hematoma (IMH) continue to be debated. Methods and Results—We studied 1010 patients with acute aortic syndromes who were enrolled in the International Registry of Aortic Dissection (IRAD) to delineate the prevalence, presentation, management, and outcomes of acute IMH by comparing these patients with those with classic aortic dissection (AD). Fifty-eight (5.7%) patients had IMH, and this cohort tended to be older (68.7 versus 61.7 years; P<0.001) and more likely to have distal aortic involvement (60.3% versus 35.3%; P<0.001) compared with 952 patients with AD. Patients with IMH described more severe initial pain than did those with AD but were less likely to have ischemic leg pain, pulse deficits, or aortic valve insufficiency; moreover, they required a longer time to diagnosis and more diagnostic tests. Overall mortality of IMH was similar to that of classic AD (20.7% versus 23.9%; P=0.57), as was mortality in patients with IMH of the descending aorta (8.3% versus 13.1%; P=0.60) and the ascending aorta (39.1% versus 29.9%; P=0.34) compared with AD. IMH limited to the aortic arch was seen in 7 patients, with no deaths, despite medical therapy in only 6 of the 7 individuals. Among the 51 patients whose initial diagnostic study showed IMH only, 8 (16%) progressed to AD on a serial imaging study. Conclusions—The IRAD data demonstrate a 5.7% prevalence of IMH in patients with acute aortic syndromes. Like classic AD, IMH is a highly lethal condition when it involves the ascending aorta and surgical therapy should be considered, but this condition is less critical when limited to the arch or descending aorta. Fully 16% of patients have evidence of evolution to dissection on serial imaging.

Gender-Related Differences in Acute Aortic Dissection

Background—Few data exist on gender-related differences in clinical presentation, diagnostic findings, management, and outcomes in acute aortic dissection (AAD). Methods and Results—Accordingly, we evaluated 1078 patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) to assess differences in clinical features, management, and in-hospital outcomes between men and women. Of the patients enrolled in IRAD (32.1%) with AAD, 346 were women. Although less frequently affected by AAD (32.1% of AAD), women were significantly older and had more often presented later than men (P =0.008); symptoms of coma/altered mental status were more common, whereas pulse deficit was less common. Diagnostic imaging suggestive of rupture, ie, periaortic hematoma, and pleural or pericardial effusion were more commonly observed in women. In-hospital complications of hypotension and tamponade occurred with greater frequency in women, resulting in higher in-hospital mortality compared with men. After adjustment for age and hypertension, women with aortic dissection die more frequently than men (OR, 1.4, P =0.04), predominantly in the 66- to 75-year age group. Moreover, surgical outcome was worse in women than men (P =0.013); type A dissection in women was associated with a higher surgical mortality of 32% versus 22% in men despite similar delay, surgical technique, and hemodynamics. Conclusions—Our analysis provides insights into gender-related differences in AAD with regard to clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes; important diagnostic and therapeutic implications may help shed light on aortic dissection in women to improve their outcomes.

Acute type A aortic dissection in the elderly: clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes in the current era

OBJECTIVES We sought to evaluate the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of elderly patients with acute type A aortic dissection. BACKGROUND Few data exist on the clinical manifestations and outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection in an elderly patient cohort. METHODS We categorized 550 patients with type A aortic dissection enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection into two age strata (<70 and >or=70 years) and compared their clinical features, management, and in-hospital events. RESULTS Thirty-two percent of patients with type A dissection were aged >or=70 years. Marfan syndrome was exclusively associated with dissection in the young, whereas hypertension, atherosclerosis and iatrogenic dissection predominated in older patients. Typical symptoms (abrupt onset of chest or back pain) and signs (aortic regurgitation murmur or pulse deficits) of dissection were less common among the elderly. Fewer elderly patients were managed surgically than younger patients (64% vs. 86%, p < 0.0001). Hypotension occurred more frequently (46% vs. 32%, p = 0.002) and focal neurologic deficits less frequently (18% vs. 26%, p = 0.04) among the elderly. In-hospital mortality was higher among older patients (43% vs. 28%, p = 0.0006). Logistic regression analysis identified age >or=70 years as an independent predictor of hospital death for acute type A aortic dissection (odds ratio 1.7, 95% confidence interval 1.1-2.8; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Our study shows significant differences between older (age >or=70 years) and younger (age <70 years) patients with acute type A aortic dissection in their clinical characteristics, management, and hospital outcomes. Future research should evaluate strategies to improve outcomes in this high-risk elderly cohort.

Changes in size of ascending aorta and aortic valve function with time in patients with congenitally bicuspid aortic valves

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is associated with premature valve dysfunction and abnormalities of the ascending aorta. Limited data exist regarding serial changes of aortic dilation in patients with BAV. We studied paired transthoracic echocardiograms of 68 patients with BAV (mean age 44 years) and with at least 2 examinations >12 months apart (mean follow-up 47 months) to characterize the progression of aortic dilation and the natural history of valve function. We measured aortic root and ascending aortic diameters at baseline and follow-up. We measured aortic gradients and severity of aortic regurgitation (AR). During follow-up, aortic diameters increased at the sinuses of Valsalva by 1.9 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 2.5), at the sinotubular junction by 1.6 mm (95% CI 0.8 to 2.3), and at the proximal ascending aorta by 2.7 mm (95% CI 1.9 to 3.6). Mean rate of diameter progression was 0.5 mm/year at the sinuses of Valsalva (95% CI 0.3 to 0.7), 0.5 mm/year at the sinotubular junction (95% CI 0.3 to 0.7), and 0.9 mm/year at the proximal ascending aorta (95% CI 0.6 to 1.2). Progression was observed regardless of hemodynamic function at baseline. Mean aortic valve gradient increased significantly from baseline to follow-up (17.6 mm Hg vs 25.7 mm Hg, p <0.001). The degree of AR increased during follow-up in 17 patients (25%). In addition, progression of aortic diameter dilation occurred irrespective of baseline valve function in adult patients with BAV. We also observed considerable progression of aortic gradients and AR over time.

Iatrogenic aortic dissection

Given the difference in risk factors, clinical presentation, and outcomes, clinicians should be vigilant for the presence of iatrogenic AD, particularly in those patients with unexplained hemodynamic instability or myocardial ischemia following invasive vascular procedures or CABG.

Presentation, diagnosis, and outcomes of acute aortic dissection: 17-year trends from the international registry of acute aortic dissection

BACKGROUND Diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of acute aortic dissection (AAS) are changing. OBJECTIVES This study examined 17-year trends in the presentation, diagnosis, and hospital outcomes of AAD from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). METHODS Data from 4,428 patients enrolled at 28 IRAD centers between December 26, 1995, and February 6, 2013, were analyzed. Patients were divided according to enrollment date into 6 equal groups and by AAD type: A (n = 2,952) or B (n = 1,476). RESULTS There was no change in the presenting complaints of severe or worst-ever pain for type A and type B AAD (93% and 94%, respectively), nor in the incidence of chest pain (83% and 71%, respectively). Use of computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis of type A increased from 46% to 73% (p < 0.001). Surgical management for type A increased from 79% to 90% (p < 0.001). Endovascular management of type B increased from 7% to 31% (p < 0.001). Type A in-hospital mortality decreased significantly (31% to 22%; p < 0.001), as surgical mortality (25% to 18%; p = 0.003). There was no significant trend in in-hospital mortality in type B (from 12% to 14%). CONCLUSIONS Presenting symptoms and physical findings of AAD have not changed significantly. Use of chest CT increased for type A. More patients in both groups were managed with interventional procedures: surgery in type A and endovascular therapy in type B. A significant decrease in overall in-hospital mortality was seen for type A but not for type B.

Association of Painless Acute Aortic Dissection With Increased Mortality

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with painless acute aortic dissection (AAD). PATIENTS AND METHODS For this study conducted from 1997 to 2001, we searched the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection to identify patients with painless AAD (group 1). Their clinical features and in-hospital events were compared with patients who had painful AAD (group 2). RESULTS Of the 977 patients in the database, 63 (6.4%) had painless AAD, and 914 (93.6%) had painful AAD. Patients in group 1 were older than those in group 2 (mean +/- SD age, 66.6 +/- 13.3 vs 61.9 +/- 14.1 years; P = .01). Type A dissection (involving the ascendIng aorta or the arch) was more frequent in group 1 (74.6% vs 60.9%; P = .03). Syncope (33.9% vs 11.7%; P < .001), congestive heart failure (19.7% vs 3.9%; P < .001), and stroke (11.3% vs 4.7%; P = .03) were more frequent presenting signs in group 1. Diabetes (10.2% vs 4.0%; P = .04), aortic aneurysm (29.5% vs 13.1%; P < .001), and prior cardiovascular surgery (48.1% vs 19.7%; P < .001) were also more common in group 1. In-hospital mortality was higher in group 1 (33.3% vs 23.2%; P = .05), especially due to type B dissection (limited to the descending aorta) (43.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001), and the prevalence of aortic rupture was higher among patients with type B dissection in group 1 (18.8% vs 5.9%; P = .04). CONCLUSION Patients with painless AAD had syncope, congestive heart failure, or stroke. Compared with patients who have painful AAD, patients who have painless AAD have higher mortality, especially when AAD is type B.

Abnormal left ventricular intracavitary flow acceleration in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. A marker for high postoperative morbidity and mortality.

BackgroundWe examined the clinical and echocardiographic characteristics of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis whose continuous wave Doppler studies showed abnormal intracavitary flow acceleration. Methods and ResultsThe clinical and Doppler echocardiographic records of 53 consecutive patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis were reviewed. Doppler echocardiography was performed at a mean of 6.6 days (range, 0–22 days) after surgery. Thirteen patients (group 1) had a dagger-shaped high-velocity systolic flow signal indicative of abnormal intracavitary flow acceleration on their postoperative Doppler study; group 2 comprised 40 aortic stenosis patients who underwent aortic valve replacement but had no postoperative evidence of abnormal intracavitary flow acceleration. Group 1 postoperative abnormal intracavitary flow velocities ranged from 1.8 to 6.8 m/sec (mean, 4.9±0.9 m/sec): Resulting dynamic gradients ranged from 10 to 184 mm Hg (mean, 104.6±32 mm Hg). Compared with group 2, group 1 patients had a distinctive ventricular geometry with more-pronounced hypertrophy, smaller cavities, and higher ejection fraction. Systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve did not accompany abnormal intracavitary flow acceleration in any patient. Six of 13 group 1 patients suflered postoperative hemodynamic compromise characterized by severe hypotension despite adequate pulmonary capillary wedge pressures; group 1 postoperative mortality was significantly greater than that seen in group 2 patients (38% versus 12%, p<0.05). ConclusionsAbnormal intracavitary flow acceleration after aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis is associated with a distinctive ventricular geometry and supernormal systolic function but not systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve. Such flow acceleration appears to be a marker for increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Preoperative and postoperative Doppler echocardiography may be useful in risk stratification and guiding therapy.