Intimal disruption in type B aortic intramural hematoma. Does size matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Features and outcomes of focal intimal disruption in acute type B intramural haematoma

OBJECTIVES

A focal intimal disruption (FID) is a risk factor for adverse aorta-related events in patients with acute type B intramural haematoma. This study evaluated the impact of FIDs on overall survival with a selective intervention strategy for large or growing FIDs. Additionally, this study evaluated the risk factors associated with the growth of FIDs.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all consecutive patients admitted for acute type B intramural haematomas between November 2004 and April 2021. The primary outcome was overall survival. The secondary outcome was the cumulative incidence of composite aortic events and the growth of FIDs. The latter was calculated on centreline-reconstructed computed tomography images.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients were included. A total of 106 FIDs were identified in 73 patients (73/105, 69.5%). The 1- and 5-year cumulative incidence rates of composite aortic events were 36.2% and 39.2%, respectively. The 1- and 5-year overall survival was 93.3% and 81.5%, respectively. Initial maximal aortic diameter and large FIDs during acute phase were significant risk factors for composite aortic events, but not risk factors for overall survival. The early appearance interval of an FID was a significant risk factor for growth of an FID.

CONCLUSIONS

With a selective intervention strategy for large or growing FIDs, the presence of large FIDs during the acute phase does not affect overall survival. The early appearance interval was associated with the growth of FIDs.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

MR Angiography for Aortic Diseases

Aortic pathologic conditions represent diverse disorders, including aortic aneurysm, acute aortic syndrome, traumatic aortic injury, and atherosclerosis. Given the nonspecific clinical features, noninvasive imaging is critical in screening, diagnosis, management, and posttherapeutic surveillance. Of the commonly used imaging modalities, including ultrasound, computed tomography, and MR imaging, the final choice often depends on a combination of factors: acuity of clinical presentation, suspected underlying diagnosis, and institutional practice. Further research is needed to identify the potential clinical role and define appropriate use criteria for advanced MR applications such as four-dimenional flow to manage patients with aortic pathologic conditions.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Intramural Hematoma of the Thoracic Aorta: A Single Institution 12 Year Experience

OBJECTIVE

The natural history and management of intramural hematoma (IMH) varies significantly worldwide. In this retrospective analysis of our institutional database, we report long-term results from medical and surgical management of types A and B IMH.

METHODS

CT scan reports completed at our tertiary care hospital from July 2007 to July 2020 were used to identify patients with IMH with thickness >7mm. Those with IMH directly related to trauma, previous aortic surgery, penetrating atheromatous ulcer, dissection flap, iatrogenic source, or who never received any treatment for IMH at the time of presentation were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients with IMH met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty-four presented with Stanford type A: 10 were initially managed surgically and 14 were initially managed medically. Two patients in the medical group crossed over to surgery. Thirty patients presented with type B IMH and were initially managed medically, with three eventually receiving surgical intervention. In-hospital survival was 90% for type A IMH treated surgically, 93% for type A IMH treated medically, and 97% for type B IMH treated medically. At last follow-up imaging of medically managed patients, 36% of type A IMH and 31% of type B IMH patients had complete resolution of IMH at 3.7 and 31.5 months respectively, without operative intervention. Development of aortic aneurysm at the site of previous IMH was seen in 18% (2/11) and 12% (3/26) for the type A medical and type B medical cohorts; the overall rate of aortic aneurysm formation in the region of IMH or in another segment was 50%. There was no difference in long-term survival between the three cohorts at a mean follow up of 22.8 months.

CONCLUSION

There appears to be a role for medical treatment with anti-impulse therapy in appropriately selected patients with type A IMH. These patients must be followed closely clinically and radiographically for signs of deterioration in the short- and long-term phases of their care. They can achieve similar long-term survival compared with surgically treated type A IMH and medically treated type B IMH patients using this algorithm but may require late surgical intervention, especially for aneurysmal disease.

Intramural hematoma with intramural blood pool associated with vertebral compression fracture

Although intramural blood pools due to intercostal arteries in intramural hematoma have been reported as a traumatic aortic injury, the precise mechanism is unclear. We present the case of an elderly patient who presented with an intramural blood pool due to an intercostal artery prolapse in an intramural hematoma associated with a compression fracture of the thoracic vertebra after a fall. <Learning objective: It is possible to treat intramural blood pool due to intercostal artery prolapse in an intramural hematoma associated with thoracic vertebral compression and intramural blood pool in an intramural hematoma as a traumatic aortic injury with medications.>.

IMPACT OF THORACIC ENDOVASCULAR AORTIC REPAIR TIMING ON AORTIC REMODELING IN ACUTE TYPE B AORTIC INTRAMURAL HEMATOMA

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is increasingly utilized in the management of acute type B aortic intramural hematoma (TBIMH). Optimal timing for intervention has not been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate TEVAR timing on post-operative aortic remodeling.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent TEVAR for TBIMH from January 2008 to September 2018. Imaging was reviewed pre- and postoperatively. Primary data points included true lumen diameter (TLD) and total aortic diameter (TAD) at the site of maximal pathology. Primary endpoint was aortic remodeling evidenced by a TAD/TLD ratio closest to 1.0. Secondary outcome was occurrence of aortic-related adverse events and mortality (AREM): aortic rupture, aortic-related death, progression to dissection or need for aortic re-intervention within 12 months. Patients undergoing emergent TEVAR (within 24 hours, 'eTEVAR') were compared to the remainder - delayed TEVAR ('dTEVAR').

RESULTS

We analyzed 71 patients that underwent TEVAR FOR TBIMH; 25 underwent emergent TEVAR and 46 patients underwent dTEVAR (median: 5.5 days, range: 2-120 days). There were no differences in demographics and comorbidities and patients did not differ in presenting IMH thickness (12.6±3.1 mm vs. 11.3±4.1 mm, p=0.186) nor presenting TAD/TLD ratio (1.535±0.471 vs. 1.525±0.397, p=0.928) for eTEVAR and dTEVAR groups, respectively. eTEVAR patients had larger average presenting maximal descending aortic (DTA) diameter (45.8±14.3 mm vs. 38.2±7.5 mm, p=0.018) and higher incidence of penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) on presenting CT angiography (52.0% vs 21.7%, p=0.033). Thirty day mortality was 2/25 (8.0%) for eTEVAR and 2/45 (4.4%) for dTEVAR (p=0.602). Postoperative aortic remodeling was more complete in the dTEVAR group (1.23±0.12 vs. 1.33±0.15, p=0.004). Case-control matching (controlling for presenting DTA diameter and PAU) on 30 patients still showed better aortic remodeling in the dTEVAR group (1.125±0.100 vs 1.348±0.42, p<0.001). The incidence of AREM was higher in the eTEVAR - 6/25 (24.0%) - group compared to the dTEVAR group - 2/46 (4.3%). At 12 months, freedom from AREM was higher in the dTEVAR group (95.7% vs. 76.0%, p=0.011). Postoperative TAD/TLD ratio was the best predictor for late aortic-related adverse events (AUROC=0.825, p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

TEVAR for acute type B IMH within 24 hours of admission is associated with lower aortic remodeling and higher occurrence of late aortic related adverse events and mortality. Delaying TEVAR when clinically possible could improve aortic remodeling and aortic-related outcomes.

Penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) is defined as ulceration of an aortic atherosclerotic plaque penetrating through the internal elastic lamina into the media. With the advances in imaging techniques, the differential diagnosis between PAU and other aortic ulcers remains a challenge. This review aims to summarize the latest insight into PAU, based on clinical context and the newest imaging characteristics, to aid treatment decision-making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most PAUs are asymptomatic and do not require urgent invasive treatment. Nevertheless, when PAU leads to an acute aortic syndrome, emergency invasive therapy is recommended. A differential diagnosis with other lesions, such as ulcerated plaques or intimal disruptions within the context of an aortic intramural hematoma, is required as the risk of complications and management differ. Imaging technique plays a pivotal role in the correct diagnosis of aortic ulcers.

SUMMARY

The differential diagnosis of PAU with other aortic ulcers based on clinical and imaging technique information is mandatory as it may imply different prognosis and management. This diagnosis is particularly important when PAU is the cause of acute aortic syndromes as urgent invasive treatment should be recommended.

Beyond the term penetrating aortic ulcer: A morphologic descriptor covering a constellation of entities with different prognoses

Penetrating aortic ulcer (AU) is defined as localized disruption of the intimal layer of the aortic wall, resulting in a crater-like lesion outpouching from the vessel contour. AU is a generic term which encompasses a constellation of entities with different etiologies and prognoses and may be a complication of infective, inflammatory, traumatic, iatrogenic, atherosclerotic processes or intramural hematoma. One of the most challenging scenarios of AU for a differential diagnosis, but also for treatment implications, is when they are associated with acute aortic syndrome. Despite advances in the field of aortic disease, lack of consensus defining these lesions and the significant semantic confusion in the medical literature of the acronym PAU (for penetrating aortic ulcer but also for penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer) have given rise to controversy in guidelines and expert consensus, leading to the same treatment being recommended for entities with different etiology and prognosis. Moreover, in the medical literature, most diagnoses were mainly based on imaging techniques which identified AU regardless of clinical symptoms, surrounding imaging findings or dynamic morphologic changes. In this Review, we provide the latest insight into the differential diagnosis between AU, also called penetrating aortic ulcers, based on clinical context and the newest imaging characteristics to aid treatment decision-making.

Intramural hematoma and penetrating ulcer in the descending aorta: differences and similarities

Acute aortic syndromes include a variety of overlapping clinical and anatomic diseases. Intramural hematoma (IMH), penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU), and aortic dissection can occur as isolated processes or can be found in association. All these entities are potentially life threatening, so prompt diagnosis and treatment is of paramount importance. IMH and PAU affect patients with atherosclerotic risk factors and are located in the descending aorta in 60-70% of cases. IMH diagnosis can be correctly made in most cases. Aortic ulcer is a morphologic entity which comprises several entities-the differential diagnosis includes PAU, focal intimal disruptions (FID) in the context of IMH evolution and ulcerated atherosclerotic plaque. The pathophysiologic mechanism, evolution and prognosis differ somewhat between these entities. However, most PAU are diagnosed incidentally outside the acute phase. Persistent pain despite medical treatment, hemodynamic instability, maximum aortic diameter (MAD) >55 mm, significant periaortic hemorrhage and FID in acute phase of IMH are predictors of acute-phase mortality. In these cases, TEVAR or open surgery should be considered. In non-complicated IMH or PAU, without significant aortic enlargement, strict control of cardiovascular risk factors and frequent follow-up imaging appears to be a safe management strategy.