Comparison of surgical and conservative treatment outcomes for type a aortic intramural hematoma.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare hospital and long-term clinical outcomes associated with various treatment methods for Stanford A type aortic intramural hematoma (IMH) to provide a reference for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

In this single-center cohort study, we retrospectively analyzed 73 patients with Type A IMH treated at our center from August 1, 2018 to August 1, 2021. Among these patients, 26 were treated conservatively, and 47 underwent surgical intervention. We next compared this IMH cohort with 154 patients with acute type A aortic dissection (AD) who were treated surgically during the same study period.

RESULTS

Computed tomography angiography revealed that the diameter of the ascending aorta of IMH patients treated with surgery was higher than IMH patients treated with conservative therapy (44.92 ± 7.58 mm vs. 51.22 ± 11.85 mm, P < 0.05), while there was no significant difference in other clinical parameters. The in-hospital mortality of patients with IMH who underwent surgical treatment was lower than those undergoing conservative treatment (0% vs. 11.5%, P < 0.05). The long-term mortality of the conservative IMH group was higher than the surgical IMH group (26.1% vs. 8.5%, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the surgical parameters and postoperative complications between AD and IMH surgery patients. The proportion of circulatory arrest time in the lower body (19.98 ± 9.39 min vs. 17.51 ± 3.97 min) and arch involvement (98 (63.6%) vs. 22 (46.8%)) in the IMH surgery group was lower than in the AD surgery group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment of IMH significantly improves the survival rate of patients. Thus, surgical intervention should be considered the primary treatment option if feasible. Furthermore, The safety of IMH surgery can be guaranteed just like AD. But we still need in the future evidence on bigger samples.