Key result
Proximal aortic intramural hematoma shows similar two-year survival to typical aortic dissection.
Why the study?
The natural history and clinical course of proximal aortic intramural hematoma (AIH) compared with typical aortic dissection (AD) involving the ascending aorta are not clearly known.
Does proximal aortic intramural hematoma have a different clinical course and mortality rate compared to typical proximal aortic dissection?
Cohort (n=105)
Does proximal aortic intramural hematoma have a different clinical course and mortality rate compared to typical proximal aortic dissection?
Absolute Event Rate: 84% vs 76%
p-value: p=0.47
Proximal aortic intramural hematoma has a more favorable clinical course with medical treatment compared to typical aortic dissection, suggesting medical management with frequent imaging may be a rational alternative to emergent surgical repair.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that the absence of direct flow communication through intimal tear in aortic intramural hematoma (AIH) involving the ascending aorta has different clinical impact on clinical course compared with typical aortic dissection (AD). BACKGROUND: Although emergent surgical repair has been applied for patients with proximal AIH as if it was typical AD, the natural history of proximal AIH is not known clearly yet. METHODS: Direct comparison of the clinical data of 81 patients with proximal AD and 24 patients with AIH was performed retrospectively. RESULTS: Patients with AIH were older (67 +/- 10 vs. 50 +/- 13, p = 0.001), and female gender was more predominant in AIH (19/24 vs. 29/81, p = 0.001). The development of mediastinal hemorrhage and pericardial and pleural effusion was more frequent in patients with AIH than it was in patients with AD. Although medical treatment was more frequently selected in the AIH group (75% vs. 15%, p = 0.001) due to old age and other associated medical diseases, the mortality rate with medical treatment was much lower in patients with AIH than it was in patients with AD (6% vs. 58%, p = 0.003). In follow-up imaging studies of 13 patients who survived AIH without surgical repair, seven patients showed complete resolution. Typical AD developed in three patients, and the other three patients showed focal AD only in the descending aorta. The two-year survival rate did not show significant difference (84% +/- 6% in AIH vs. 76% +/- 17% in AD, p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Absence of continuous flow communication can explain a more favorable clinical course of AIH than for AD, and medical treatment with frequent imaging follow-up and timed elective surgery in cases with complications can be a rational option for patients with proximal AIH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Song et al. (2001) conducted a cohort in Aortic intramural hematoma vs typical aortic dissection (n=105). Aortic intramural hematoma (AIH) vs. Typical aortic dissection (AD) was evaluated on Two-year survival rate (p=0.47). Proximal aortic intramural hematoma had a similar two-year survival rate compared to typical aortic dissection (84% vs. 76%, p=0.47), but lower mortality with medical treatment.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: