Key result
A new classification scheme identified Type C aortic dissections in 11% of patients, who received significantly more endovascular or hybrid interventions (37%) than those with types A (3%) or B (20%).
Why the study?
Existing classifications did not consider the aortic arch as a separate entity or integrate patterns of malperfusion syndrome in acute aortic dissection.
Does a new CTA-based classification scheme for acute aortic dissection incorporating aortic arch involvement and malperfusion syndrome correlate with treatment strategies and outcomes?
Observational (n=226)
No
Does a new CTA-based classification scheme for acute aortic dissection incorporating aortic arch involvement and malperfusion syndrome correlate with treatment strategies and outcomes?
Absolute Event Rate: 37% vs 3%
p-value: p=<0.001
A new CTA-based classification for acute aortic dissection that separates aortic arch involvement (Type C) and malperfusion syndrome grades is feasible and highlights that Type C dissections frequently require specific endovascular or hybrid management.
May inform intervention planning for Type C cases; leaves open prospective validation of outcome impact.
Objectives To report a new classification scheme for acute aortic dissection (AAD) that considers the aortic arch as a separate entity and integrates patterns of malperfusion syndrome (MPS). The proposed classification was evaluated retrospectively in a large population. Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed pre-therapy CT angiograms of 226 consecutive patients (mean±SD age: 64±12 years) with AAD. AADs were reclassified with a new classification scheme that included three aortic dissection types (A, involving at least the ascending aorta; B, involving exclusively the descending aorta; and C, involving the aortic arch with/without the descending aorta) and four malperfusion grades (0: no MPS; 1: dynamic MPS; 2: static MPS; 3: static and dynamic MPS). AAD features were assessed and correlated to patient outcomes. Results According to the new classification, we identified 152 type A dissections (92 A0, 11 A1, 38 A2, 11 A3); 50 type B (38 B0, 5 B1, 6 B2, 1 B3); and 24 type C (17 C0, 6 C2, 1 C3). Type C represented 11% of all AADs. MPS occurred in 34%, 24% and 29% in type A, B and C, respectively. Type C was treated with significantly more endovascular or hybrid interventions (37%) than in types A (7%) and B (10%) (p<0.001). Conclusion The new AAD classification was feasible, and type C was easily identified (“non-A, non-B”). Preliminary findings supported the usefulness of this classification for the decision-making process and subsequent treatments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qanadli et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Acute aortic dissection (n=226). Type C acute aortic dissection vs. Type A and Type B acute aortic dissection was evaluated on Endovascular or hybrid interventions (p=<0.001). A new classification scheme identified Type C aortic dissections in 11% of patients, who received significantly more endovascular or hybrid interventions (37%) than those with types A (3%) or B (20%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: