Emergency pericardial drainage without aortic repair for type A intramural haematoma complicated by cardiac tamponade

Watch-and-wait strategy for selected patients with type A intramural hematoma

OBJECTIVE

This single-center retrospective study evaluated early and midterm outcomes of 100 consecutive patients with type A intramural hematoma.

METHODS

Initial watch-and-wait strategy was indicated if the maximum aortic diameter was < 50 mm, pain score was < 3/10 on the numerical rating scale, and no ulcer-like projection was observed in the ascending aorta. The primary endpoints of this study were all-cause and aorta-related deaths, and the secondary endpoint was aortic events.

RESULTS

Initial watch-and-wait strategy was indicated in 52 patients. Emergency aortic repair was indicated in the remaining 48 patients; 2, 31, and 15 patients died before surgery, underwent emergency surgery, and declined emergency surgery, respectively. Among the watch-and-wait group, 11 (21%) patients underwent aortic repair during hospitalization. In-hospital mortality rates, 5-year survival rates, and 5-year freedom from aorta-related death were not significantly different between the initial watch-and-wait strategy and emergency surgery (2% vs. 6%, 92% vs. 82%, and 100% vs. 94%, respectively). In the initial watch-and-wait strategy group, 5-year freedom from aortic events and freedom from aortic events involving the ascending aorta were 60% and 66%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The early and midterm outcomes with the initial watch-and-wait strategy in patients with type A intramural hematoma with a maximum aortic diameter of ≤ 50 mm, pain score of ≤ 3/10, and no ulcer-like projection in the ascending aorta were favorable with no aorta-related death.

Preoperative pericardial hematoma in patients with acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD): Do we need an adjusted treatment?

OBJECTIVE

An acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) is a critical emergency and remains one of the most challenging diseases in cardiothoracic surgery. The existence of a pericardial hematoma caused by an aortic rupture can dramatically reduce the chances of survival (Jerzewski and Kulik in J Card Surg 29(4):529-530, 2014; Mehta et al. in Circulation 105(2):200-206, 2002; Gilon et al. in Am J Cardiol 103(7):1029-1031, 2009; Isselbacher et al. in Circulation 90(5):2375-2378, 1994). We assessed the surgical outcome of a high-risk group of patients with AAAD and a pericardial hematoma.

METHODS

In this study we included 430 Patients (67% male; median age: 64 years) who received surgical treatment between January 2000 and January 2018 at our facility for acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I. We divided the cohort in two groups: Group A consisted of high-risk patients with a pericardial hematoma (n = 162) and Group B of patients without pericardial hematoma (n = 268).

RESULTS

Patients with a preoperative pericardial hematoma had a significantly higher requirement for preoperative mechanical resuscitation (A: 21%; B: 1.5%; P: < 0.001) and were relevantly more frequently admitted to the operation theater with an intubated status (A: 19.8%; B: 8.6%; P: < 0.001). The incidence of visceral malperfusion differed significantly between both groups (A. 11.7%, B. 6:0%; P: 0.034). Limited aortic arch repair (proximal aortic arch replacement) was preferred in the high-risk group (A: 51.9%; B: 40.3%; P: 0.020). However, survival time was generally reduced in these patients (A: 7.5 y; B: 9.9 y).

CONCLUSION

AAAD patients with preoperative pericardial hematoma present themselves in potentially lethal conditions, with a significantly higher rate of visceral malperfusion. Despite the existence of this risk factor, a limited arch repair was favored. We have proven that cardiac compression is associated with preoperative intubation and mechanical resuscitation. Patients with pericardial hematoma must be further evaluated for preoperative pericardial drainage. In the event of long transfer times to an aortic center a slow drainage should be discussed to prevent early mortality.