Circulation · 2012
Acute aortic intramural hematoma: an analysis from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Harris Kevin M, Braverman Alan C, Eagle Kim A, Woznicki Elise M, Pyeritz Reed E, Myrmel Truls, Peterson Mark D, Voehringer Matthias, Fattori Rossella, Januzzi James L, Gilon Dan, Montgomery Daniel G, Nienaber Christoph A, Trimarchi Santi, Isselbacher Eric M, Evangelista Arturo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Acute aortic intramural hematoma (IMH) is an important subgroup of aortic dissection, and controversy surrounds appropriate management.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with acute aortic syndromes in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (1996-2011) were evaluated to examine differences between patients (based on the initial imaging test) with IMH or classic dissection (AD). Of 2830 patients, 178 had IMH (64 type A [42%], 90 type B [58%], and 24 arch). Patients with IMH were older and presented with similar symptoms, such as severe pain. Patients with type A IMH were less likely to present with aortic regurgitation or pulse deficits and were more likely to have periaortic hematoma and pericardial effusion. Although type A IMH and AD were managed medically infrequently, type B IMH were more frequently treated medically. Overall in-hospital mortality was not statistically different for type A IMH compared to AD (26.6% versus 26.5%; P=0.998); type A IMH managed medically had significant mortality (40.0%), although less than classic AD (61.8%; P=0.195). Patients with type B IMH had a hospital mortality that was less but did not differ significantly (4.4% versus 11.1%; P=0.062) from classic AD. One-year mortality was not significantly different between AD and IMH.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute IMH has similar presentation to classic AD but is more frequently complicated with pericardial effusions and periaortic hematoma. Patients with IMH have a mortality that does not differ statistically from those with classic AD. A small subgroup of type A IMH patients are managed medically and have a significant in-hospital mortality.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with acute aortic syndromes in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (1996-2011) were evaluated to examine differences between patients (based on the initial imaging test) with IMH or classic dissection (AD). Of 2830 patients, 178 had IMH (64 type A [42%], 90 type B [58%], and 24 arch). Patients with IMH were older and presented with similar symptoms, such as severe pain. Patients with type A IMH were less likely to present with aortic regurgitation or pulse deficits and were more likely to have periaortic hematoma and pericardial effusion. Although type A IMH and AD were managed medically infrequently, type B IMH were more frequently treated medically. Overall in-hospital mortality was not statistically different for type A IMH compared to AD (26.6% versus 26.5%; P=0.998); type A IMH managed medically had significant mortality (40.0%), although less than classic AD (61.8%; P=0.195). Patients with type B IMH had a hospital mortality that was less but did not differ significantly (4.4% versus 11.1%; P=0.062) from classic AD. One-year mortality was not significantly different between AD and IMH.
CONCLUSIONS: Acute IMH has similar presentation to classic AD but is more frequently complicated with pericardial effusions and periaortic hematoma. Patients with IMH have a mortality that does not differ statistically from those with classic AD. A small subgroup of type A IMH patients are managed medically and have a significant in-hospital mortality.