Conservative Management of Spontaneous Isolated Dissection of the Superior Mesenteric Artery

Conservative versus stent treatment for spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection after the failure of initial 3 days' conservative treatment: A 10-year follow-up study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and effectiveness of conservative and stent treatment for spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (SISMAD) patients after the failure of initial 3 days' conservative treatment.

METHODS

All newly diagnosed SISMAD patients between 2013 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. After the failure of 3 days' conservative treatment, all patients were recommended for stent treatment, but some patients refused to choose it. Their demographic, radiologic, and clinical data were compared.

RESULTS

57 patients were not improved after initial 3 days' conservative treatment. Among them, 19 patients were chose to receive stent placement and 38 patients were continually treated with conservative treatment. The median follow-up time was 92.0 (range 62.7-120.4) months. There were no bowel ischemia and arterial rupture. No significant difference was observed in clinical complete recovery (Conservative 31/38 vs Stent 12/19, p =.19) and hospitalization time (Conservative 8.3 ± 1.7 days vs Stent 7.2 ± 1.5 days, p =.59) between conservative and stent treatment groups. Significant statistical differences were found in radiological complete remodeling (6/38 vs 16/19, p < .01) and hospitalization expense (8662 ± 2886 China Yuan vs 32,935 ± 11,767 China Yuan, p < .01) between these two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although undergoing the failure of initial 3 days' conservative treatment, continue conservative treatment still is safe and effective for SISMAD patients. Stent placement could be chosen as an alternative treatment, especially for patients potentially with bowel ischemia or arterial rupture.

Clinical characteristics and misdiagnosis of spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection

Background

Spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery (SMA) dissection (SISMAD) is a rare disease with a potentially fatal pathology. Due to the lack of specificity of clinical characteristics and laboratory tests, misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis are often reported. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics and misdiagnosis of SISMAD.

Methods

In a registry study from January 2013 to December 2020, 110 patients with SISMAD admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were enrolled. Descriptive methods were used to analyse clinical characteristics, laboratory data, diagnostic method or proof, misdiagnosed cases, plain computed tomography (CT) findings and dissection features. To study the relationship between dissection features and treatment modality, the selected patients were classified into the conservative group (n = 71) and the non-conservative group (n = 39). The Chi-square test and Student’s t-test were used to compare the conservative and non-conservative groups.

Results

One hundred ten patients with SISMAD, including 100 (90.9%) males and 10 (9.1%) females, with a mean age of 52.4 ± 7.6 years, were enrolled in the study. Relevant associated comorbidities included a history of hypertension in 43 cases (39.1%), smoking in 46 cases (41.8%), and alcohol consumption in 34 cases (30.9%). One hundred four patients (94.5%) presented with abdominal pain. Abnormalities in the C-reactive protein lever, white blood cells count and D-dimer lever were the 3 most common abnormal findings. There were 32 misdiagnosis or missed diagnosis. Fourteen cases were misdiagnosed because of insufficient awareness. Twelve cases were misdiagnosed because of disease features. Twenty cases were misdiagnosed as SMA embolism. Among them, There were 15 cases of Yun type IIb SISMAD. Sixty-six patients underwent plain CT. The maximum SMA diameter was 12.1 (11.3–13.1) mm, and the maximum SMA diameter was located on the left renal vein (LRV) plane in 68.2% of cases. Dissection features observed on contrast-enhanced CT (CECT), CT angiography (CTA), or digital subtraction angiography (DSA) showed that there were 70 cases (63.6%) of Yun type IIb SISMAD, the maximum SMA diameter was 13.0 ± 2.4 mm, the location of the maximum SMA diameter was on the LRV plane in 64.5% of cases, and 7.3% of cases were complicated with intestinal obstruction, including bowel necrosis in 3.6% of cases. There were differences between the conservative group and non-conservative groups in the residual true lumen diameter or degree of true lumen stenosis and the presence of intestinal obstruction or bowel necrosis (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion

For SISMAD, misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis were usually caused by insufficient awareness and disease features. SISMAD should be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with unexplained abdominal pain, especially males, patients in the 5th decade of life, patients with hypertension, and patients with an enlarged SMA diameter or a maximum SMA diameter located on the LRV plane on plain CT. Mesenteric CTA or CECT should be recommended for the investigation of these conditions.

Management of Spontaneous Isolated Mesenteric Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review

Background and Aims:

There are increasing reports on case series on spontaneous isolated mesenteric artery dissection, that is, dissections of the superior mesenteric artery and celiac artery, mainly due to improved diagnostic capacity of high-resolution computed tomography angiography performed around the clock. A few case–control studies are now available, while randomized controlled trials are awaited.

Material and Methods:

The present systematic review based on 97 original studies offers a comprehensive overview on risk factors, management, conservative therapy, morphological modeling of dissection, and prognosis.

Results and Conclusions:

Male gender, hypertension, and smoking are risk factors for isolated mesenteric artery dissection, while the frequency of diabetes mellitus is reported to be low. Large aortomesenteric angle has also been considered to be a factor for superior mesenteric artery dissection. The overwhelming majority of patients can be conservatively treated without the need of endovascular or open operations. Conservative therapy consists of blood pressure lowering therapy, analgesics, and initial bowel rest, whereas there is no support for antithrombotic agents. Complete remodeling of the dissection after conservative therapy was found in 43% at mid-term follow-up. One absolute indication for surgery and endovascular stenting of the superior mesenteric artery is development of peritonitis due to bowel infarction, which occurs in 2.1% of superior mesenteric artery dissections and none in celiac artery dissections. The most documented end-organ infarction in celiac artery dissections is splenic infarctions, which occurs in 11.2%, and is a condition that should be treated conservatively. The frequency of ruptured pseudoaneurysm in the superior mesenteric artery and celiac artery dissection is very rare, 0.4%, and none of these patients were in shock at presentation. Endovascular therapy with covered stents should be considered in these patients.

Safety and efficacy of conservative, endovascular bare stent and endovascular coil assisting bare stent treatments for patients diagnosed with spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection

Introduction

Isolated dissection of visceral artery organs is very infrequently reported and when it occurs it mostly affects the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) with abdominal pain as the commonest presenting symptom. However, the best therapeutic strategy in symptomatic patients has not yet been established.

Aim

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of conservative, endovascular bare stent and endovascular coil assisting bare stent treatments for patients diagnosed with spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (SISMAD).

Material and methods

We reviewed patients who had SISMAD and received conservative, bare stent and coil assisting bare stent as a primary treatment between 2014 and 2018. Patient demographics, symptoms, angiographic findings and treatment outcomes were analyzed.

Results

A total of 62 patients was found to have SISMAD among whom 83.9% (n = 52) were male and 16% (n = 10) were female with the mean age of 52.55 ±7.22 years, range 33–77. 22.6% (n = 14) received conservative, 62.9% (n = 39) endovascular bare stent and 14. Four percent (n = 9) endovascular coil assisting bare stent treatment. The success rate in primary treatment was conservative 78.5% (n = 11), bare stent 97.4% (n = 38), coil assisting bare stent 100% (n = 9). The mean follow-up duration (months) was 28.76 ±12.87.

Conclusions

Endovascular bare stent placement is a safe, effective, and successful treatment in the management of symptomatic SISMAD. The diagnostic imaging result is a key point for planning appropriate treatment especially in patients with tapered vessels, longer dissection lesion, and dissection aneurysm where coil assisting bare stent shows good results. Conservative treatment should be given priority for the asymptomatic patient, but close monitoring is highly recommended.

Management Strategy Based on Disease Stages for Patients with Symptomatic Isolated Mesenteric Artery Dissection

BACKGROUND

An optimal treatment regimen is sought for symptomatic isolated mesenteric artery dissection (IMAD) on the basis of its clinical staging.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2018, 120 patients with symptomatic IMAD from two institutions were collected retrospectively. We reviewed the clinical features, risk factors, computed tomography (CT) images, treatment modalities, and follow-up results to propose a new management strategy based on the clinical stages of the disease.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were collected in this study; 77 patients (69 men, 8 women; median age, 52.53 years; range, 39-73 years) who had undergone successful conservative management with antithrombotic agents were included in group A. The remaining 43 patients (34 men, 9 women; median age, 52.63 years; range, 26-66 years) who underwent invasive therapy were included in group B. Significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to dissection length (50.72 ± 27.72 mm vs. 62 ± 24.3 mm; P = 0.02), true lumen residual diameter (3.31 ± 1.05 mm vs. 2.83 ± 2.05 mm; P = 0.01), and branch involvement (8 and 19, respectively; P < 0.001). Success was achieved in 76.24% (77/101) of patients treated by conservative management with antithrombotic agents in the acute stage; 43 patients underwent invasive interventional therapy in different stages of symptomatic IMAD. In group A, 6 patients had recurrent abdominal pain, three of whom underwent invasive intervention, and the remaining patients improved after conservative treatment. Positive remodeling was observed in 80.33% (49/61) of patients treated with conservative management alone versus 19.67% (12/61) of patients who experienced negative remodeling. Endovascular intervention in group B, CT angiography, or mesenteric angiography yielded complete remodeling in 23 (76.67%, 23/30) patients and evidence of stent restenosis in 7 (23.33%, 7/30) patients. Among the surgical patients, 7 patients showed improvement in the luminal diameter. However, 3 patients with short bowel syndrome require long-term parenteral nutrition.

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative management with antithrombotic agents should be a first-line regimen for symptomatic IMAD in the acute stage. If symptoms persist, endovascular intervention is a safe and feasible treatment in the subacute or chronic stage. When peritonitis is present, surgical treatment should be promptly performed, regardless of the disease stage.

Accurate diagnosis and treatment of isolated mesenteric artery dissections

Objectives

Diagnosis and treatment of isolated mesenteric artery dissections (IMAD) are overlooked. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical feature, possible diagnostic errors and treatment methods.

Methods

From January 2010 to December 2017, 99 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with IMAD on computed tomography angiography were enrolled retrospectively. Thirty-nine misdiagnosed patients, false negative, and 60 accurate diagnosis patients with revealed IMAD were compared. In addition, therapeutic schemes were evaluated.

Results

Ninety-nine patients participated in this study; 39 patients (34 men, 5 women; median age, 51.41 years, range 38–64 years) were included in group A who were misdiagnosed initial visit; the remaining 60 patients (52 men, 8 women; median age, 52.07 years, range 38–68 years) with IMAD who were diagnosed accurately initial visit were included in group B. Significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to dissection length (55.26 ± 3.88 mm vs. 43.37 ± 2.75 mm; p = 0.01), and branch involvement (14 and 9, respectively; p = 0.04). Ultimately, 33 patients (group A 14 patients and group B 19 patients) underwent invasive interventional therapy, and 66 patients with conservative treatment with antithrombotic agents (group A 25 patients and group B 41 patients). A total of 86 (86.87%) had follow-up computed tomography angiography with a median duration of 24.51 months (range 2–71 months). Three patients died during follow-up. The remaining patients recovered smoothly.

Conclusion

Physicians should raise the awareness of IMAD and use the optimal treatment time frame. Diagnosis of IMAD depends on imaging examinations, especially computed tomography angiography. Additionally, conservative management is the most common initial treatment. For patients in whom conservative treatment fails, endovascular and/or surgery may be necessary.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence in spontaneous isolated celiac and superior mesenteric artery dissection

OBJECTIVE

Spontaneous isolated celiac artery dissection (SICAD) and spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (SISMAD) represent the major types of spontaneous visceral artery dissection. However, no quantitative meta-analysis of SICAD and SISMAD is available. The aim of our study was to pool current evidence concerning basic profiles, treatment strategies, long-term adverse events, and morphologic changes of lesioned vessels in SICAD and SISMAD patients.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Databases (January 1, 1946-September 21, 2017) for studies of SICAD and SISMAD. Related cohort studies or case series with sample size larger than 10 were included. Two reviewers independently extracted and summarized the data. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates.

RESULTS

In total, 43 studies were included. An estimated 8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.21) symptomatic SICAD and 12% (95% CI, 0.06-0.19) symptomatic SISMAD patients with initial conservative management required secondary intervention during follow-up, whereas none of the asymptomatic patients treated conservatively required secondary intervention. As for morphologic changes during follow-up, a higher proportion of SICAD patients (64%; 95% CI, 0.47-0.80) achieved complete remodeling compared with SISMAD patients (25%; 95% CI, 0.19-0.32), and an estimated 6% (95% CI, 0.00-0.16) of SICAD and 12% (95% CI, 0.05-0.20) of SISMAD patients had morphologic progression. Overall, the pooled estimate of long-term all-cause mortality was 0% (95% CI, 0.00-0.03) in SICAD and 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.02) in SISMAD. When stratified by symptoms, symptomatic patients were associated with a significantly increased probability of accomplishing complete remodeling (odds ratio, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.31-11.85) compared with asymptomatic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial conservative treatment is safe for asymptomatic SICAD or SISMAD patients. Symptomatic patients managed conservatively have relatively high occurrence of late secondary intervention, which may require closer surveillance, especially in SISMAD because of a lower rate of remodeling.