Endovascular repair for retrograde type A intramural hematoma with focal intimal disruption in descending aorta

BackgroundThis study aims to report the experience of a single center using thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) to treat retrograde type A intramural hematoma (IMH) with focal intimal disruption (FID) in descending aorta.MethodsA total of 24 consecutive patients with retrograde type A IMH and complicated with FID in descending aorta underwent TEVAR in our center from 2015 to 2020. Their clinical data, imaging manifestation and follow-up results were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.ResultsThe median age of patients was 57.9 years (range, 42–80 years) and 18 were men (75%). As the preoperative CT angiography showed, the 24 patients developed IMH complicated with different kinds of FIDs in descending aorta [5 had intramural blood pool (IBP), 15 had ulcer-like projection (ULP), 2 had penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU), and 5 had localized dissection]. Successful deployment of aortic stent graft was achieved in all patients. There was no endoleak, stent graft migration, spinal cord ischemia, stroke, or 30-day mortality observed after TEVAR. The median duration of follow-up was 30.0 months (range, 3–60 months). As the last follow-up CT angiography showed, most of the patients (23 in 24, 96%) had favorable aortic remodeling. The maximum hematoma thicknesses and maximum diameters of both ascending and descending aorta were significantly decreased. During follow-up, 1 patient developed retrograde type A aortic dissection (RAAD) and underwent open surgery 3 months after TEVAR. 1 patient died of lung cancer 2 years later. There was no aorta-related death observed.ConclusionsTEVAR provides a safe and effective treatment strategy for selected patients with retrograde type A IMH, and FID developed in descending aorta could be the possible treatment target. However, RAAD remains one of the most serious postoperative complications of concern.     

A Novel Fenestrating Device: Quick Fenestrater for Reconstructing Supra-aortic Arteries In Situ During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BackgroundIn situ fenestration (ISF) is an effective approach for reconstructing supra-aortic branches during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). A dedicated device is needed for ISF.MethodsThe Quick Fenestrater (QF) underwent in vitro, animal-based, and initial clinical testing. In vitro, the polytetrafluoroethylene and Dacron aortic endografts were fenestrated using the QF, and the structure of the graft, fenestration hole, and shed particulate material were evaluated. Eight white swine had QF-aided ISF combined with TEVAR and bridge-stent implantation. The outcomes were assessed using intraoperative angiography and biopsy. Finally, 13 patients were treated with QF-assisted ISF combined with TEVAR, and the success rate, technical details, and intra- and postoperative complications were recorded.ResultsThe endograft structure was not damaged during in vitro testing. The fenestration hole was clean, and no particulate material was detected. In animal studies, all animals survived, the supra-aortic arteries were patent, and the endografts and bridge stents had normal morphology. In clinical studies, the technical success rate was 100%, and no fenestration-related neurologic complications or death occurred. One patient had a local access-related hematoma perioperatively and recovered after conservative treatment. Three patients had type III endoleaks, which resolved with no additional treatment. During a mean follow-up of 22.1 ± 6 months, no thoracic complications were identified, and the bridge stents were patent with no endoleaks. No adverse cerebrovascular events, cardiovascular events, or death occurred.ConclusionsQF-assisted ISF is a safe and effective method for the reconstruction of supra-aortic branches during TEVAR. Intermediate-term follow-up results validate the application of the novel fenestration device.     

Two-Year Single-Center Experience With Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Using the EndoFit Thoracic Stent-Graft

Purpose: To analyze our single-center experience of thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) using the EndoFit Thoracic Aortic Endograft. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 87 consecutive patients (64 men; median age 67.8+/-8.7 years, range 24-88) undergoing TEVAR using the EndoFit thoracic stent-graft from December 2005 to December 2007. Slightly more than half (n = 46) of the patients had thoracic aortic aneurysm, while 41 had thoracic aortic dissection. Seventeen cases were performed emergently. All patients had imaging follow-up before discharge; at 1, 3, and 6 months; and annually thereafter. Results: The technical success rate was 100%. Fifty-five (63.2%) patients had different debranching procedures to extend the proximal or distal landing zone. The in-hospital and 30-day mortality rate was 9.2% (8/87). Neurological complications occurred in 8 (9.3%) patients, including 5 strokes (2 fatal) and 3 cases of paraplegia. One intraoperative massive bleeding from an ascending aortic debranching anastomosis was rescued with the aid of a pump. Five patients had immediate proximal type I endoleak; 3 were remedied with a proximal cuff, 1 was rescued with tri-lobe balloon, and 1 was left untreated. One type II endoleak remains under observation. The average follow-up was 15.2 months (range 5-29), during which 10 (11.5%) patients died of causes unrelated to the aneurysm or stent-graft. All the extra-anatomical bypasses and stent-grafts were patent; no stent-graft kinking, collapse, or dislocation was detected. Two post-TEVAR proximal endoleaks were remedied with a proximal cuff after debranching. There was no post-TEVAR rupture or conversion to open surgery. Conclusion: Our 2-year single-center experience using the EndoFit system for TEVAR showed a high technical success rate and a low incidence of device- or aneurysm-related complications. The flexible, hydrophilic introducer was easy to insert and track through the vasculature. The debranching techniques to extend the landing zones not only broaden the applicability of TEVAR but also reduce post-TEVAR complications.     

胸主动脉腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层

目的 总结胸主动脉腔内修复术（thoracic endovascular aortic repair,TEVAR）治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层的临床经验.方法 回顾性分析134例Stanford B型主动脉夹层患者的临床资料,分析并发症发生的原因及随访近、远期效果.结果 术前死亡4例,未手术1例,施行TEVAR 129例,手术操作均成功,部分封堵左锁骨下动脉27例（20.9％）,完全封闭左锁骨下动脉12例（9.3％）;Ⅰ型内漏13例（10.1％）,夹层逆剥为Stanford A型1例,低氧血症23例（17.8％）,肾功能衰竭需血液滤过9例（7.1％）,术后精神症状37例（28.7％）,脑梗死3例.随访2个月～5年,随访110例,随访率85.7％,1例术后1年和1.5年出现支架远端夹层,两次手术植入覆膜支架,部分封闭了腹腔干动脉,1例术后2个月时因肠梗阻在外院行手术治疗,1例术后4年时支架远端发生夹层破裂死亡,1例术后3个月突然死亡.Ⅰ型内漏消失11例,持续存在2例.结论 急诊TEVAR治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层安全、可靠,近期效果良好,加强并发症的防治,可进一步改善临床效果.     

TEVAR in Patients With Late Complications of Aortic Coarctation Repair

Purpose: To review the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for late pseudoaneurysm formation after surgical repair of aortic coarctation. Methods: From May 2001 to May 2005, 8 patients (5 men; mean age 47.6 years, range 18-73) with a history of aortic coarctation repairs 17 to 40 years prior were referred to our institution for an anastomotic thoracic pseudoaneurysm. TEVAR was performed successfully in 7 patients; 1 died of suspected aneurysm rupture before the scheduled procedure. A carotid-subclavian bypass was performed in 3 patients. Results: All the procedures were immediately successful. No type I endoleaks were seen on the final control angiogram, but 2 of the patients with carotid-subclavian bypasses required additional left subclavian artery embolization due to type II endoleak. One of these patients died before embolotherapy on the 5th postoperative day from presumed aneurysm rupture (14% 30-day mortality rate). Over a follow-up period ranging from 15 to 72 months (mean 37), all the false aneurysms have remained thrombosed and the mean diameter has decreased from 44 to 23 mm. No endograft-related complications have occurred, and no further interventions have so far been necessary. Conclusion: TEVAR is a feasible alternative treatment for patients who have already undergone surgical repair of aortic coarctation. Technical issues regarding the endovascular strategy should be discussed with a multidisciplinary team to define the correct interventional plan.     

Short term outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with thoracic aortic diseases

Aim and background

Open surgical repair for thoracic aortic diseases is associated with a high perioperative mortality and morbidity. Most of type B aortic dissections are uncomplicated and are medically treated which carries a high mortality rate. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is the first-line therapy for isolated aneurysms of the descending aorta and complicated type B aortic dissection. The aim of this study is to test the safety of early thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection and patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Thoracic aortic endografting in patients with connective tissue diseases.

PURPOSE: To present midterm results after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with connective tissue diseases focusing on secondary endoleak and reintervention due to disease progression. METHODS: Between January 1997 and January 2007, 167 patients received 241 thoracic aortic stent-grafts. Eight patients (6 men; median age 48 years, range 32-67) with connective tissue diseases (6 Marfan and 2 Ehlers-Danlos syndrome) treated with stent-graft repair were retrospectively analyzed at a median follow-up of 31 months (range 3-79). Surveillance included postoperative computed tomographic angiography and/or magnetic resonance imaging exams prior to discharge, at 3, 6, and 12 months, and yearly thereafter. RESULTS: Technical success of endovascular placement was 88% due to 1 primary type I endoleak. There were no perioperative deaths, and there have been no conversions to open surgery so far. Perioperative complications occurred in 2 (25%) of the 8 patients. Endoleaks were observed in 3 patients (primary type I, secondary type I, and type II). The reintervention rate was 38%. Progression of disease resulting in de novo aneurysms or aortic expansion occurred in 4 (50%) patients. Seven (88%) patients are alive. There was no disease- or procedure-related death. CONCLUSION: TEVAR in patients with connective tissue diseases is feasible but still questionable regarding their young age and the rates of endoleaks and reintervention due to disease progression. Close surveillance is mandatory. Low morbidity and mortality rates may justify TEVAR in emergencies as a "bridging" method.     

Different clinical features of aortic intramural hematoma versus dissection involving the descending thoracic aorta

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the absence of flow communication in aortic intramural hematoma (IMH) involving the descending aorta may have a different clinical course compared with aortic dissection (AD). METHODS: We prospectively evaluated clinical and echocardiographic data in AD (76 patients) and IMH (27 patients) of the descending thoracic aorta. RESULTS: Patients did not differ with regard to age, gender, or clinical presentation. IMH and AD had the same predictors of complications at follow-up: aortic diameter (>5 cm) at diagnosis and persistent back pain. Surgical treatment was more frequently selected in AD (39% vs. 22%, P < 0.01) and AD patients who underwent surgical treatment had higher mortality than those with IMH (36% vs. 17%, P < 0.01). There was no difference in mortality with medical treatment (14% in AD vs. 19% in IMH, P = 0.7). During follow-up, of 23 patients with IMH, 11 (47%) showed complete resolution or regression, 6 (26%) increased the diameter of the descending aorta, and typical AD developed in 3 patients (13%). No changes occurred in 14% of the group. Three-year survival rate did not show significant differences between both groups (82 +/- 6% in IMH vs. 75 +/- 7% in AD, P = 0.37). CONCLUSION: IMH of the descending thoracic aorta has a relatively frequent rate of complications at follow-up, including dissection and aneurysm formation. Medical treatment with very frequent imaging and timed elective surgery in cases with complications allows a better patient management.     

新一代Captivia后释放输送系统Valiant主动脉覆膜支架使用初步体会

目的 初步评估Valiant Captivia主动脉覆膜支架在主动脉Stanford B型夹层主动脉腔内修复术（thoracic endovascular aortic repair,TEVAR）中应用的有效性及安全性.方法 收集从2012年1月至2012年6月在广东省人民医院住院,行Stanford B型主动脉夹层TEVAR,并使用Valiant支架传统输送系统或新一代Captivia输送系统的Valiant覆膜支架系统、病历资料完整的患者共40例.其中使用Valiant组25例,使用Captivia组15例.所有患者采用局部麻醉,经皮穿刺技术,使用快速右心室起搏进行起搏过程中控制性降压,通过造影进行支架定位.比较两组的移植物定位准确性、手术时间、内漏和并发症发生率等.结果 两组的基线资料包括年龄、性别及并发疾病、基础血压、支架释放时血压及介入后血压比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.两组围术期心率包括基础、支架释放时,及介入治疗后心率和手术时间比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.但从移植物定位准确性看,Captivia组与Valiant组相比较少产生移植物移位,差异有统计学意义[（4.9±2.4）mm vs.（3.3±1.8）mm,P=0.028].两组支架释放后即时造影发现残留内漏发生率及术后出现脊髓缺血的发生率比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.结论 与原Valiant支架相比,新一代使用后释放设计的Valiant（R） Captivia支架释放时能更安全、简便地调整支架位置,有助于支架的精确释放.     

Outcomes of fenestrated endografts in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm in Western Australia (1997-2004).

PURPOSE: To describe a 7-year experience with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair using fenestrated Zenith endovascular endografts. METHODS: Six endovascular surgeons from 7 medical centers in Perth, Western Australia, contributed data to this retrospective study of 58 AAA patients (51 men; mean age 75.5+/-8.5 years, range 60-94) treated with fenestrated endografts. Fenestrations were applied to 116 target vessels; more than half of patients had >/=2 target vessels. The results were based on satisfactory deployment of the stent-graft and fenestrations (technical success), technical success and no complications (procedural success), and aneurysm exclusion with no endoleak, rupture, unresolved complications, or dialysis (treatment success). RESULTS: Technical success was 82.8% for patients (90.5% for target vessels), procedural success was 74.1%, and treatment success was 94.8%. There were no cases of conversion or rupture. The 30-day mortality rate was 3.4% (n=2). Over a mean follow-up of 1.4+/-1.2 years, 10 (17.2%) patients experienced loss of a target vessel (9.5% of target vessels). Factors associated with target vessel loss were no stent, >60 degrees neck angulation, multiple renal vessels, and vessel diameter 相似文献   

Combined surgical and catheter‐based treatment of extensive thoracic aortic aneurysm and aortic valve stenosis

An extensive thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is a potentially life‐threatening condition and remains a technical challenge to surgeons. Over the past decade, repair of aortic arch aneurysms has been accomplished using both hybrid (open and endovascular) and totally endovascular techniques. Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) has changed and extended management options in thoracic aorta disease, including in those patients deemed unfit or unsuitable for open surgery. Accordingly, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used to treat patients with symptomatic severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) who are considered at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. In this report, we describe the combined surgical and catheter‐based treatment of an extensive TAA and AS. To our knowledge, this is the first report of hybrid TAA repair combined with TAVR. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Treatment of thoracic aortic disease using endovascular stent-grafts: from therapeutic indications to possible complications

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a minimally invasive technique which is increasingly used in different thoracic aortic pathologies such as aortic aneurysm, complicated type B aortic dissection, aortic trauma, intramural hematoma and penetrating aortic ulcer. In this paper we discuss the main indications for endovascular stent-grafts in the treatment of thoracic aortic disease, based on three cases in which this procedure was used for three different conditions: degenerative aneurysm, complicated type B dissection and post-traumatic injury. These case reports add to the evidence that TEVAR is a safe and feasible therapeutic alternative in selected patients with thoracic aortic disease, improving aortic remodeling, with relatively low morbidity and mortality. The main complications and difficulties related to the procedure are also discussed.     

One-stage hybrid procedure for distal aortic arch disease: mid-term experience at a single center

BackgroundThis study analyzes the outcomes of a one-stage hybrid procedure combining thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with extra-anatomic bypass in patients with distal aortic arch disease.MethodsThis retrospective study collected 103 hybrid procedures combining TEVAR with extra-anatomic bypass (mean age, 62.2±9.3 years; 90 males) performed from January 2009 to January 2019 at Beijing Anzhen Hospital. We analyzed 30-day and mid-term outcomes including survival rate and the incidence of stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), and endoleak.ResultsFive deaths (4.6%) occurred within 30 days, including type I endoleak in Zone 1 (n=1), hemorrhagic shock (n=1), stroke (n=2), and stent migration (n=1). Two patients developed SCI. The median follow-up time was 39.5 (interquartile range, 13.6-69.0) months. In all, 14 late deaths occurred; these were due to stroke (n=2), severe pneumonia (n=1), aortic rupture caused by type I endoleak (n=3), and sudden death (n=8). Six late endoleaks occurred including three type I and one type II in Zone 1 and two type I in Zone 2. In a competing risks analysis, the incidences of reintervention at 7 years, late death, and survival without reintervention were 8%, 22%, and 70%, respectively. In a Cox risk model, stroke (HR, 21.602; 95% CI: 2.798–166.796; P=0.003) was the only risk factor for 30-day mortality. Stroke (HR, 19.484; 95% CI: 5.245–72.380; P<0.001), SCI (HR, 15.548; 95% CI: 2.754–87.786; P=0.002), and endoleak (HR, 4.626; 95% CI: 1.068–20.040; P=0.041) were independent risk factors for long-term mortality.ConclusionsThe one-stage hybrid procedure provides acceptable mid-term results with good mid-term patency of extra-anatomic bypass. Strict selection of patients suitable for hybrid repair can effectively improve the survival rate and reduce the incidence of complications. At the same time, close follow-up patients should receive close long-term follow-up after hybrid procedure.     

急性Stanford B型主动脉夹层腔内修复治疗的疗效评价

目的:评价腔内修复术（TEVAR）治疗急性Stanford B型主动脉夹层的中、远期疗效。方法: 2001年12月～2009年6月,对急性Stanford B型主动脉夹层进行血管腔内支架植入治疗患者288（男237,女51）例,年龄21～79（平均51.2）岁。局部或全身麻醉,在 X线透视下将支架型人工血管经股动脉放置在主动脉夹层第1裂口位置,实现腔内修复。应用多排CT等技术进行38个月（6～102月）的随访,观察假腔血栓形成情况、有无内漏、血流动力学变化、移植物位置及形态、内脏动脉供血等情况,评估该方法的安全性及有效性。结果: 全组患者无移植物错放、移位、瘤体破裂、中转手术和截瘫等并发症。围术期死亡6例,分别为:腹腔脏器缺血/再灌注损伤2例、升主动脉逆行夹层1例、夹层破裂1例、心肌梗死1例及死亡原因不明1例。住院期间并发症发生率25.3%,包括术后即刻内漏、发热、肾功能不全、切口感染、肺炎、神经系统并发症、心功能不全、左肱动脉假性动脉瘤、截肢等。随访中共有7例死亡(2.4%),4例患者行二次TEVAR术后治愈。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线显示5年累积生存率达96%。结论: TEVAR术是治疗急性Stanford B型主动脉夹层的一种有效方法,中期疗效满意,患者远期生存状况良好。     

Management beim akuten Aortensyndrom

Background

The term acute aortic syndrome (AAS) describes a spectrum of heterogeneous acute pathologies of the aorta with similar clinical symptoms. These include aortic dissection, intramural aortic hematoma (IMH) and penetrating arteriosclerotic aortic ulcer (PAU).

Causes

The most common risk factor in patients with aortic dissection or IMH is arterial hypertension. Other risk factors are smoking, blunt force trauma and consumption of illegal drugs. Approximately 20?% of younger patients with aortic dissection or thoracic aortic aneurysms have mostly an underlying autosomal dominant genetic defect.

Symptoms and diagnostics

The main symptom of AAS is acute thoracic pain. Because there are no clinical exclusion criteria for AAS and due to the high mortality, all clinically suspect symptoms should be rapidly investigated by diagnostic imaging.

Therapy and monitoring

The initial therapy consists of reduction of the mostly dysregulated blood pressure to systolic values. The next step in the approach is either surgical or endovascular treatment which nowadays represents the therapy of choice. Follow-up treatment of patients with aortic diseases is indispensable due to the complexity and potential progression.     

Combined staged procedures for the treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms.

PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy of a staged approach for the treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms, with open visceral revascularization followed by aortic endografting, in selected patients not considered candidates for conventional surgical repair. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 13 consecutive patients (8 women; mean age 64 years, range 33-77) who underwent visceral bypass followed by endovascular thoracoabdominal stent-graft implantation since 1999. Three patients presented with symptomatic aneurysms and 2 with rupture. Two patients had connective tissue disorders. All patients were deemed unfit for conventional thoracoabdominal repair due to comorbid conditions. The procedures were tailored to the pathology and specific patient anatomical situation: 5 aortic dissections with aneurysmal degeneration and 8 aneurysms (5 Crawford type II, 2 type III, and 1 type IV). RESULTS: The patients underwent retrograde visceral bypass (11 iliovisceral and 2 infrarenal aortic to visceral artery) followed by endovascular aortic relining with Zenith TX2 devices (n=7), homemade endografts (n=5), or a Talent thoracic endograft (n=1). Six patients required either a proximal or distal direct aortic repair (2 infrarenal reconstructions, 3 arch elephant trunk grafts, and 1 ascending aortic repair), while 3 patients also underwent left carotid-subclavian bypass grafting. Two patients developed paraplegia (1 following a ruptured aneurysm), and 2 patients had transient paraparetic events. Two patients had acute renal failure requiring short-term dialysis. Three patients died within 30 days; 2 late aneurysm-related deaths were noted. Three patients developed endoleaks during follow-up. Mean lengths of stay were 13 days (7-30) for the visceral bypass and 12 (3-25) for the endovascular stent-graft. In addition, remaining procedures in 8 patients required a mean of 7 days (0-14) in hospital. CONCLUSION: Staged endovascular and open procedures are feasible for thoracoabdominal aneurysms in patients at prohibitive risk for open thoracoabdominal reconstruction. However, this approach still carries a significant risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity. The potential for less invasive alternatives should be investigated.     

Intravascular iliac artery lithotripsy to enable transfemoral thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is performed with large‐bore delivery systems. Small‐size access vessels may be a contraindication for TEVAR, particularly in case of severe calcifications. In this case report, we describe the first‐in‐man use of intravascular lithotripsy to enable transfemoral delivery of TEVAR stent grafts in a patient with severely calcified iliac arteries. A 69‐year‐old female with multiple sclerosis and thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) was referred for percutaneous TEVAR. Both common iliac arteries were severely calcified with circumferential calcifications and a minimum diameter below 5.5 mm. In order to enable percutaneous delivery of 20 French Valiant Navion stent grafts (Medtronic), the circumferential calcified plaques were treated by use of a Shockwave? Peripheral Intravascular Lithotripsy Balloon (Shockwave Medical Inc.). Subsequently, the aortic stent grafts were safely and successfully passed through the iliofemoral artery and the TAA was excluded by TEVAR. Final angiography showed normal flow in the iliofemoral artery without any signs of perforation or overt dissection. This case report demonstrates successful application of intravascular lithotripsy in calcified iliofemoral arteries enabling percutaneous transfemoral TEVAR. If confirmed in future cases and trials, indications for transfemoral TEVAR may further expand toward patients with severely calcified peripheral arterial disease.     

Ulcer-like projections into the dilated false lumen after stent-graft placement for aortic dissection: A case report

Rationale:Acute type A aortic dissection and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD) occurs simultaneously in rare cases. Although the development of ulcer-like projection (ULP) is associated with an increase in adverse aorta-related events, the false-lumen enlargement caused by the ULP progression is uncommon.Patient concerns:A 72-year-old female with chronic TBAD was admitted to our unit with back and chest pain. Computed tomography revealed acute type A aortic dissection and a hematoma caused by rupturing of the descending aorta due to chronic TBAD. After endovascular intervention, the false lumen thrombosed and shrunk.Diagnosis:After 9 months, a developing ULP, which projected into a dilating false lumen, was found. An impending ruptured descending aortic aneurysm was confirmed.Interventions:Emergency Total arch replacement and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) was performed.Outcomes:The procedure was successful. One year later, regular follow-up showed that the false lumen had completely shrunk.Lessons:ULP can arise and cause progressive dilation of false lumen after TEVAR. Careful and regular computed tomography examinations are required for early diagnosis of false lumen becoming thrombosed after TEVAR. Close follow-up and timely intervention, including TEVAR, should be considered in cases of aortic enlargement due to a newly developed ULP.     

Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Intact Descending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms

Background

For the management of descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, recent evidence has suggested that outcomes of open surgical repair may surpass thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in as early as 2 years.

Pathologic variants of thoracic aortic dissections. Penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers and intramural hematomas

This article confirms the existence of two variants of acute aortic pathology, the penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU) and the intramural hematoma (IMH), which are radiologically distinct from classic aortic dissection. Table 4 reviews the characteristics distinguishing PAU from classic aortic dissection and IMH. We took as a matter of definition that classic aortic dissection involves a flap which traverses the aortic lumen. We defined PAU and IMH as nonflap lesions, with PAU demonstrating a crater extending from the aortic lumen into the space surrounding the aortic lumen. This categorization can be summarized with the expression, "no flap, no dissection." With these definitions made, re-review of the imaging studies for the present report identified 36 such lesions out of 214 cases originally read as aortic dissection. Therefore, these variant lesions accounted for over 1 out of 8 acute aortic pathologies. Besides confirming the existence of the conditions, PAU and IMH, as distinct radiographic lesions, this series strongly suggests that these two conditions constitute distinct clinical entities as well. Table 4 summarizes the clinical patterns of these two entities as apparent from the present study, and contrasts them with classic aortic dissections. In particular, the following observations, some of which are consonant findings in smaller series, can be made regarding the typical patient profiles of PAU and IMH from the present study: The patients with PAU and IMH are distinctly older than those with type A aortic dissection (74.0 and 73.9 versus 56.5 years, P = 0.0001). Although not statistically significant, PAU and IMH patients tend to be older than patients with type B aortic dissections as well. For PAU and IMH, unlike aortic dissection, the concentration in the elderly is manifested in a very small standard deviation of the mean age (see Fig. 13); these two entities, PAU and IMH, are essentially diseases of the seventh, eighth, and ninth decades of life. Patients with PAU and IMH are almost invariably hypertensive (about 94% of cases). The pain of PAU and IMH mimics that of classic aortic dissection, with anterior symptoms in the ascending aortic lesions and intrascapular or back pain with descending aortic lesions. Unlike classic dissection, PAU and IMH do not produce branch vessel compromise or occlusion and do not result in ischemic manifestations in the extremities or visceral organs. PAU and IMH are more focal lesions than classic aortic dissection, which frequently propagates for much or the entire extent of the thoracoabdominal aorta. PAU is uniformly associated with severe aortic arteriosclerosis and calcification, whereas classic dissection often occurs in aortas with minimal arteriosclerosis and calcification. PAU and IMH tend to occur in even larger aortas than classic aortic dissection (6.2 and 5.5 versus 5.2 cm, P = 0.01). PAU and IMH are strongly associated with AAA, which is seen concomitantly in 42.1% of PAU patients and 29.4% of IMH patients. PAU and IMH are largely diseases of the descending aorta (90% for PAU and 71% for IMH). Although our pathology data is limited, we do feel that an inherent difference in the histologic intramural level of the hematoma may underlie the pathophysiologic process that determines which patient develops a typical dissection and which develops an intramural hematoma. In particular, we feel that the level of blood collection is more superficial, closer to the adventitia, in IMH than in typical aortic dissection. This may explain why the inner layer does not prolapse into the aorta on imaging studies or when the aorta is opened in the operating room. This more superficial location would also explain the high rupture rates as compared to classic aortic dissection (Fig. 14, Table 3). We did find PAU and IMH to behave much more malignantly than typical descending aortic dissection. As seen in Figure 6, the rupture rate is much higher than for aortic dissection. Docume