Santi Trimarchi

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.

Clinical Profiles and Outcomes of Acute Type B Aortic Dissection in the Current Era: Lessons From the International Registry of Aortic Dissection (IRAD)

Background—Clinical profiles and outcomes of patients with acute type B aortic dissection have not been evaluated in the current era. Methods and Results—Accordingly, we analyzed 384 patients (65±13 years, males 71%) with acute type B aortic dissection enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). A majority of patients had hypertension and presented with acute chest/back pain. Only one-half showed abnormal findings on chest radiograph, and almost all patients had computerized tomography (CT), transesophageal echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and/or aortogram to confirm the diagnosis. In-hospital mortality was 13% with most deaths occurring within the first week. Factors associated with increased in-hospital mortality on univariate analysis were hypotension/shock, widened mediastinum, periaortic hematoma, excessively dilated aorta (≥6 cm), in-hospital complications of coma/altered consciousness, mesenteric/limb ischemia, acute renal failure, and surgical management (all P <0.05). A risk prediction model with control for age and gender showed hypotension/shock (odds ratio [OR] 23.8, P <0.0001), absence of chest/back pain on presentation (OR 3.5, P =0.01), and branch vessel involvement (OR 2.9, P =0.02), collectively named ‘the deadly triad’ to be independent predictors of in-hospital death. Conclusions—Our study provides insight into current-day profiles and outcomes of acute type B aortic dissection. Factors associated with increased in-hospital mortality (“the deadly triad”) should be identified and taken into consideration for risk stratification and decision-making.

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.

Complicated Acute Type B Dissection: Is Surgery Still the Best Option?: A Report From the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection

OBJECTIVES Impact on survival of different treatment strategies was analyzed in 571 patients with acute type B aortic dissection enrolled from 1996 to 2005 in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. BACKGROUND The optimal treatment for acute type B dissection is still a matter of debate. METHODS Information on 290 clinical variables were compared, including demographics; medical history; clinical presentation; physical findings; imaging studies; details of medical, surgical, and endovascular management; in-hospital clinical events; and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS Of the 571 patients with acute type B aortic dissection, 390 (68.3%) were treated medically, 59 (10.3%) with standard open surgery and 66 (11.6%) with an endovascular approach. Patients who underwent emergency endovascular or open surgery were younger (mean age 58.8 years, p < 0.001) than their counterparts treated conservatively, and had male preponderance and hypertension in 76.9%. Patients submitted to surgery presented with a wider aortic diameter than patients treated by interventional techniques or by medical therapy (5.36 +/- 1.7 cm vs. 4.62 +/- 1.4 cm vs. 4.47 +/- 1.4 cm, p = 0.003). In-hospital complications occurred in 20% of patients subjected to endovascular technique and in 40% of patients after open surgical repair. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher after open surgery (33.9%) than after endovascular treatment (10.6%, p = 0.002). After propensity and multivariable adjustment, open surgical repair was associated with an independent increased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 3.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 11.67, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection, the less invasive nature of endovascular treatment seems to provide better in-hospital survival in patients with acute type B dissection; larger randomized trials or comprehensive registries are needed to access impact on outcomes.

Role and Results of Surgery in Acute Type B Aortic Dissection Insights From the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD)

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.

Acute Aortic Dissection: Perspectives from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD)

Acute aortic dissection is a rare but deadly disease first described over 200 years ago by the physician to the late King George II on necropsy. Over the ensuing 2 centuries, the understanding of the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up has matured. In an effort to understand the contemporary treatment of this disease, the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) has enrolled over 2000 patients over the past 12 years. In this article we summarize the key lessons learned from this multi-national registry of patients presenting with acute aortic dissection.

Diagnosis of Acute Aortic Dissection by D-Dimer. The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection Substudy on Biomarkers (IRAD-Bio) Experience

Background— D-dimer has been reported to be elevated in acute aortic dissection. Potential use as a “rule-out” marker has been suggested, but concerns remain given that it is elevated in other acute chest diseases, including pulmonary embolism and ischemic heart disease. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of D-dimer testing in a study population of patients with suspected aortic dissection. Methods and Results— In this prospective multicenter study, 220 patients with initial suspicion of having acute aortic dissection were enrolled, of whom 87 were diagnosed with acute aortic dissection and 133 with other final diagnoses, including myocardial infarction, angina, pulmonary embolism, and other uncertain diagnoses. D-dimer was markedly elevated in patients with acute aortic dissection. Analysis according to control disease, type of dissection, and time course showed that the widely used cutoff level of 500 ng/mL for ruling out pulmonary embolism also can reliably rule out aortic dissection, with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.07 throughout the first 24 hours. Conclusion— D-dimer levels may be useful in risk stratifying patients with suspected aortic dissection to rule out aortic dissection if used within the first 24 hours after symptom onset.

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.

Meta-analysis of open versus endovascular repair for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm

INTRODUCTION Ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (rDTAA) is associated with high mortality rates. Data supporting endovascular thoracic aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) to reduce mortality compared with open repair are limited to small series. We investigated published reports for contemporary outcomes of open and endovascular repair of rDTAA. METHODS We systematically reviewed all studies describing the outcomes of rDTAA treated with open repair or TEVAR since 1995 using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) databases. Case reports or studies published before 1995 were excluded. All articles were critically appraised for relevance, validity, and availability of data regarding treatment outcomes. All data were systematically pooled, and meta-analyses were performed to investigate 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and paraplegia rates after both types of repair. RESULTS Original data of 224 patients (70% male) with rDTAA were identified: 143 (64%) were treated with TEVAR and 81 (36%) with open repair. Mean age was 70 +/- 5.6 years. The 30-day mortality was 19% for patients treated with TEVAR for rDTAA compared 33% for patients treated with open repair, which was significant (odds ratio [OR], 2.15, P = .016). The 30-day occurrence rates of myocardial infarction (11.1% vs 3.5%; OR, 3.70, P < .05), stroke (10.2% vs 4.1%; OR, 2.67; P = .117), and paraplegia (5.5% vs 3.1%; OR, 1.83; P = .405) were increased after open repair vs TEVAR, but this failed to reach statistical significance for stroke and paraplegia. Five additional patients in the TEVAR group died of aneurysm-related causes after 30 days, during a median follow-up of 17 +/- 10 months. Follow-up data after open repair were insufficient. The estimated aneurysm-related survival at 3 years after TEVAR was 70.6%. CONCLUSION Endovascular repair of rDTAA is associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality rate compared with open surgical repair. TEVAR was associated with a considerable number of aneurysm-related deaths during follow-up.

Role of age in acute type A aortic dissection outcome: report from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD).

OBJECTIVE The increasing life expectancy of the population will likely be accompanied by a rise in the incidence of acute type A aortic dissection. However, because of an increased risk of cardiac surgery in an elderly population, it is important to define when, if at all, the risks of aortic repair outweigh the risk of death from unoperated type A aortic dissection. METHODS We analyzed 936 patients with type A aortic dissection enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection from 1996 to 2004. Patients with type A aortic dissection were categorized according to patient age by decade and by surgical versus medical management, and outcomes of both management types were investigated in the different age groups. RESULTS The rate of surgical aortic repair decreased progressively with age, whereas surgical mortality significantly increased with age. Age 70 years or more was an independent predictor for mortality (38.2% vs 26.0%; P < .0001, odds ratio 1.73). The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower after surgical management compared with medical management until the age of 80 years. For patients aged 80 to 90 years, the in-hospital mortality appeared to be lower after surgical management (37.9% vs 55.2%; P = .188); however, this failed to reach clinical significance owing to the limited patient number in this age group. CONCLUSIONS Although the surgical mortality significantly increased with increased age, surgical management was still associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with medical management until the age of 80 years. Surgery may decrease the in-hospital mortality rate for octogenarians with type A aortic dissection and might be considered in all patients with type A aortic dissection regardless of age.