Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Oct;60(4):929-35; discussion 935-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.04.015. Epub 2014 May 10.

Aortic remodeling after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for intramural hematoma.

Author information

1
Division of Vascular Surgery, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Va.
2
Division of Vascular Surgery, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Va. Electronic address: pannetjm@evms.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Intramural hematoma (IMH), penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU), and aortic dissection comprise a spectrum of acute aortic pathologies. Although thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has increasingly been applied to aortic dissection, there is a paucity of data on the anatomic effect of TEVAR for IMH. Our goal was to investigate the extent of aortic remodeling after TEVAR.

METHODS:

A retrospective chart review from 2006 to 2012 was conducted on patients who underwent TEVAR for IMH. Data were collected from the electronic medical record. Radiology images were reviewed and primary data points included diameter (TLD) and volume measurements for aortic true lumen and total aortic diameter (TAD) and volume at the site of maximal pathology. Aortic remodeling was evidenced by a TAD/TLD ratio closest to 1.0. Patients with no imaging beyond 30 days postoperatively were excluded.

RESULTS:

During the 6-year period, 44 patients underwent TEVAR for IMH. Twenty-five patients had an IMH with concomitant PAU. There were 25 (57%) female patients. Mean age was 71 ± 11 years, and 40 (91%) patients had hypertension. Operative indications included intractable pain in 31 (70%), rapidly progressing IMH or conversion to dissection in 13 (30%), rupture in 10 (23%), and uncontrolled hypertension in 6 (14%). Technically successful TEVAR was performed in all patients with 42 (95%) reporting complete relief of symptoms. The 30-day mortality rate was 5% with a 5% rate of permanent paraplegia or paraparesis. At a mean follow-up of 26 months, there were no additional aortic-related deaths and overall survival was 80% with a reintervention rate of 11%. For our imaging analysis, 10 patients were excluded because of lack of follow-up imaging beyond 30 days. At a mean follow-up of 13 months, all measured data points were statistically improved from before to after TEVAR: thickness of IMH (12 mm vs. 4 mm; P = .01), mean TLD (35 mm vs. 37 mm; P = .04), mean TAD (47 mm vs 42 mm; P = .02), TAD/TLD ratio (1.35 vs. 1.14; P < .01), and IMH volume (103 cm3 vs. 14 cm3; P < .01). The mean Δ in TAD/TLD ratio from before to after TEVAR for the reintervention group was Δ0.14, and the mean Δ in TAD/TLD ratio for the nonreintervention group was Δ0.29 (P = .05). Analysis of patients with isolated IMH and those with concomitant PAU revealed no statistical differences.

CONCLUSIONS:

TEVAR is safe and effective in treating IMH and based on longitudinal computed tomography scan analysis, aortic remodeling is evidenced by normalization of all measured indices.

PMID:
24816512
DOI:
10.1016/j.jvs.2014.04.015
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center