Penetrating aortic ulcer: Defining risks and therapeutic strategies

Technical and Clinical Outcomes of 13 years of Endovascular Repair of Infrarenal, Atherosclerotic, Penetrating Aortic Ulcers

BACKGROUND

To report the technical and clinical outcomes of endovascular repair of all infrarenal, penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) that were treated at a single institution over a 13-year period.

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective observational study. All patients consecutively treated for atherosclerotic, infrarenal PAU were included between 2010 and 2023. Outcomes were technical success, overall survival, PAU-related death, freedom from secondary rupture, freedom from secondary interventions, freedom from aortic expansion >5 mm, freedom from type 1 and type 3 endoleak (EL), and freedom from stent graft migration, each at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years of follow-up. The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00028794).

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were included (8 female patients, 17.0%) with a median age of 75.7 years (interquartile range (IQR): 70.2-81.0). The median maximum aortic diameter was 39.7 mm (IQR: 33.6-45.2). Overall, primary and secondary technical success was achieved in 42 of 47 (89.4%) and 46 of 47 patients (97.9%). Standard aortobiiliac endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was the most frequent procedure in 25 patients (53.2%). An aortomonoiliac stent graft system was used in 5 patients (10.6%). The remaining 17 patients (36.2%) were treated using an aorto-aortic tube stent graft configuration. The median clinical follow-up was 5.1 years (IQR: 1.9-8.1) with a median imaging follow-up of 1.5 years (IQR: 0.4-5.0). Overall survival at 30 days, 1, 2, and 5 years of follow up was estimated at 100% (confidence interval (CI), 100%-100%), 95.4% (CI, 89.4%-100%), 87.9% (CI, 78.4%-98.4%), and 82.0% (70.7%-95.2%), respectively. There was 1 PAU-related death (2.1%). Freedom from secondary intervention at 30 days, 1, 2, and 5 years of follow-up was 93.6% (CI, 86.9-100%), 89.2% (CI, 80.6-98.6%), 81.5% (CI, 70.7-94.0%), and 75.2% (CI, 62.8-90.2%), respectively. No patient who underwent either preoperative (n = 1) or intraoperative embolization (N = 7) of lumbar arteries (LAs) and/or the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) demonstrated type 2 EL during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

A variety of alternatives to standard aortobiiliac EVAR are required for endovascular PAU repair. To identify the optimal management strategy in these cases further studies are needed. Type 2 EL in abdominal PAU disease appears to be preventable by LA and/or IMA embolization.

Computational Fluid Dynamics-Driven Comparison of Endovascular Treatment Strategies for Penetrating Aortic Ulcer

Background: Penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) is an acute aortic syndrome characterized by a high rupture risk. There are several PAU-treatment procedures indicated for the management of this pathology associated with different effects on vessel morphology and hemodynamics. A deep evaluation of the different types of treatment may be helpful in decision making. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a powerful tool for detailed inspection of cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this work was to implement a comparative analysis based on CFD evaluation of the effects of two type of PAU treatments. Methods: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a left subclavian artery (LSA) branched aortic endograft (SBSG) and a hybrid approach including TEVAR and carotid-LSA bypass were considered. Aortic anatomical models were created from computed tomography (CT) images acquired before and after PAU treatment with SBSG for three patients. Starting from these models, a new aortic geometry corresponding to the outcome of the hybrid strategy was generated. Morphological analysis and CFD simulations were carried out for all aortic models to evaluate LSA outflow for the same predefined boundary conditions. Results: Reductions in LSA diameter were found between aortic models before and after the SBSG (18.2%, 20.8%, and 12.4% for CASE 1, CASE 2, and CASE 3, respectively). The flow rate at LSA changed between pre-configuration and aortic configuration after the PAU treatments: an averaged decrement of 1.08% and 7.5% was found for SBSG and the hybrid approach, respectively. The larger increase in pressure drop between the aortic arch and the LSA extremity was shown in the hybrid approach for all cases. Conclusions: CFD simulations suggest that SBSG preserves LSA perfusion more than a hybrid strategy and has less impact on thoracic aorta hemodynamics.

Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Aortic Arch Penetrating Atherosclerotic Ulcer Using Castor Single-Branched Stent-Graft With Zone 2 Landing

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU) using Castor single-branched stent-graft with zone 2 landing.

METHODS

Between May 2020 and April 2022, a total of 25 aortic arch PAU patients were treated by TEVAR with Castor single-branched stent-graft. Outcomes included technical success, perioperative and follow-up morbidity and mortality, and patency of left subclavian artery (LSA).

RESULTS

All patients had aortic arch PAU with intramural hematoma (IMH). The proximal landing zone for all patients was in zone 2, which was between the distal edge of the left common carotid artery and proximal edge of LSA, in all cases. Technical success was achieved in all cases. During hospitalization after the operation, 1 patient died of gastrointestinal bleeding, and 2 patients (8.0%) had ischemic stroke. At a median follow-up of 29 months (interquartile range [IQR], 24-30 months), 2 (8.0%) patients died, including 1 ischemic stroke and 1 hemorrhagic stroke. One patient (4.0%) had reintervention owing to retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) 2 months after the operation, and was successfully treated with aortic root remodeling, ascending aorta and total aortic arch replacement and frozen elephant trunk procedure. No endoleak or LSA occlusion occurred. The maximal diameter of aorta at proximal (30.2±2.4 mm vs 31.2±3.0 mm; p>0.05) and distal (25.7±2.8 mm vs 24.5±2.3 mm; p>0.05) landing zone showed no significant difference before and after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The TEVAR for aortic arch PAU using Castor single-branched stent-graft is a safe and efficient option with zone 2 landing.

CLINICAL IMPACT

For patients with diagnosis of PAU with IMH, TEVAR with Castor single-branched stent-graft presents low mid-term mortality and morbidity rate, which should be considered as an optimal option when proximal landing zone is insufficient and revascularization of left subclavian artery (LSA) is needed. With Castor single-branched stent-graft, LSA could be revascularized easily and accurately.

Systematic Review on Abdominal Penetrating Atherosclerotic Aortic Ulcers: Outcomes of Endovascular Repair

PURPOSE

To systematically review existing evidence on outcomes of endovascular repair of abdominal atherosclerotic penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Cochrane Central Registry of Registered Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. The systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis protocol (PRISMA-P 2020). The protocol was registered in the international registry of systematic reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022313404). Studies reporting on technical and clinical outcomes of endovascular PAU repair in 3 or more patients were included. Random effects modeling was used to estimate pooled technical success, survival, reinterventions, and type 1 and type 3 endoleaks. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Pooled results are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies including 165 patients with a mean/median age ranging from 64 to 78 years receiving endovascular therapy for PAU between 1997 and 2020 were identified. Pooled technical success was 99.0% (CI: 96.0%-100%). In all, 30-day mortality was 1.0% (CI: 0%-6.0%) with an in-hospital mortality of 1.0% (CI: 0.0%-13.0%). There were no reinterventions, type 1, or type 3 endoleaks at 30 days. Median/mean follow-up ranged from 1 to 33 months. Overall, there were 16 deaths (9.7%), 5 reinterventions (3.3%), 3 type 1 (1.8%), and 1 type 3 endoleak (0.6%) during follow-up. The quality of studies was rated low according to the Modified Coleman score at 43.4 (+/- 8.5) of 85 points.

CONCLUSION

There is low-level evidence on outcomes of endovascular PAU repair. While in the short-term endovascular repair of abdominal PAU seems safe and effective, mid-term and long-term data are lacking. Recommendations with regard to treatment indications and techniques in asymptomatic PAU should be made cautiously.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This systematic review demonstrated that evidence on outcomes of endovascular abdominal PAU repair is limited. While in the short-term endovascular repair of abdominal PAU seems safe and effective, mid-term and long-term data are lacking. In the context of a benign prognosis of asymptomatic PAU and lacking standardization in current reporting, recommendations with regard to treatment indications and techniques in asymptomatic PAUs should be made cautiously.

Case Report: Role of numerical simulations in the management of acute aortic syndromes

Penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) represents a subset of acute aortic syndromes characterized by high rupture risk and management challenges, particularly in elderly patients with significant comorbidities. This case report showcases a 75-year-old patient with a history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and with multiple PAUs involving the aortic arch, deemed unfit for conventional open surgery. A branched aortic endograft with a pre-cannulated side component for the left subclavian artery (LSA) was employed to preserve the patency of the previous CABG. Two computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and a morphological analysis were performed on the pre- and post-intervention aortic configurations to evaluate changes in flow rate and pressure drop at LSA level and differences in the lumen size. The results revealed a decrease in the flow rate equal to 2.38% after the intervention and an increase in pressure drop of 4.48 mmHg, while the maximum differences in LSA cross-sectional areas and diameters were 1.49 cm2 and 0.64 cm, respectively. Minimal alteration in LSA blood flow due to the chosen intervention approach confirmed the effectiveness of the selected unibody design endograft with LSA preservation, ensuring myocardial perfusion. Therefore, CFD simulations demonstrate to be a powerful tool to evaluate the hemodynamic consequences of interventions by accurately estimating the main fluid dynamic parameters.

Penetrating aortic ulcer and aortic intramural hematoma: Treatment strategy

OBJECTIVES

The indication, timing, and choice of the treatment modality for penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and intramural hematoma (IMH) are frequently challenging. This article reviews these pathologies and their relation to aortic dissection and proposes a diagnostic and treatment algorithm.

METHODS

A review of literature on diagnosis and treatment of PAU and IMH was conducted. The PubMed database was searched using the terms "penetrating aortic ulcer" and "aortic intramural hematoma". Articles were reviewed and the studies involving diagnosis and management of PAU and IMH were included. We subsequently proposed a management algorithm for PAU and IMH based on available evidence.

RESULTS

PAU and IMH are distinct entities from aortic dissection, although they carry a significant risk of progression into dissection, aneurysm, and rupture. PAU and IMH originating in zone 0 of the aorta generally require surgical treatment. When the origin is beyond zone 0, a trial of medical therapy is recommended. Progression of disease on imaging studies, persistent uncontrolled pain, and certain high-risk features warrant surgery. High-risk features signaling risk of disease progression include PAU with IMH, PAU depth more than 10 mm, PAU diameter more than 20 mm, IMH thickness more than 10 mm, and maximum initial aortic diameter more than 40 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality evidence regarding the treatment of PAU and IMH is lacking. These entities can have a malignant course when they are present with associated symptoms and/or when they have associated high-risk features on imaging. An aggressive surgical approach is necessary in that group of patients.

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.

Highlights and Perioperative Implications from the 2022 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease

As the understanding of aortic diseases and their complications grow, increasing importance of uniformity in diagnosis and management is crucial for optimal care of this patient population. The 2022 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease discusses these considerations in detail. The purpose of this review is to highlight essential recommendations that are of relevance to the perioperative physician who manages these patients. A few notable points include, shared decision-making with patients, creation of multidisciplinary aortic teams, lower diameter thresholds for surgery in certain situations, and increased testing for patients with heritable aortic diseases. In addition to briefly reviewing basics of aortic diseases, the authors discuss changes to guidelines that are especially relevant to perioperative care.

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.

Penetrating Aortic Ulceration Treated with Castor Branched Aortic Stent Graft—A Case Series

Penetrating aortic ulceration (PAU) is an acute aortic syndrome similar to aortic dissection and intramural hematoma. It is the result of a tunica intima ulceration due to atherosclerotic disease. This clinical condition can lead to serious complications and a poor short-term prognosis, especially in high-surgical-risk patients. We report three cases of patients referred to “Ospedale del Cuore” of Massa (Italy) with PAU at the aortic arch-proximal descending aorta level who could not undergo surgical intervention. For the first time in Italy, we successfully treated these patients with a full percutaneous implantation of a Castor branched aortic stent graft. Our case series shows that this type of endovascular graft is an effective, safe, and feasible treatment for PAU involving a distal aortic arch and avoiding surgery and related complications.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for symptomatic penetrating aortic ulcers and intramural hematomas is associated with poor outcomes

BACKGROUND

The natural history of penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) and intramural hematomas (IMHs) of the aorta has not been well described. Although repair is warranted for rupture, unremitting chest pain, or growth, no threshold has been established for treating those found incidentally. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) offers an attractive approach for treating these pathologic entities. However, the periprocedural and postoperative outcomes have not been well defined.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database who had undergone TEVAR for PAUs and/or IMHs from January 2011 to February 2020 were included. We identified 1042 patients, of whom 809 had follow-up data available. The patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed to identify the risk factors for major adverse events (MAEs) and postoperative and late mortality.

RESULTS

The cohort was 54.8% female, and 69.9% were former smokers, with a mean age of 71.1 years. Comorbidities were prevalent, with 57.8% classified as having American Society of Anesthesiologists class 4. Of the 1042 patients, 89.8% had hypertension, 28.3% chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 17.9% coronary artery disease, and 12.2% congestive heart failure. Patients were predominately symptomatic (74%), and 44.5% had undergone nonelective repair. The MAE incidence was 17%. The independent predictors of MAEs were a history of coronary artery disease, nonwhite race, emergent procedural indication, ruptured presentation, and deployment of two or more endografts. In-hospital mortality was 4.3%. Of the index hospitalization mortalities, 73% were treatment related. For the 809 patients with follow-up (mean, 25.1 ± 19 months), the all-cause mortality was 10.6%. The predictors of late mortality during follow-up included age >70 years, ruptured presentation, and a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and end-stage renal disease. A subset analysis comparing symptomatic (74%) vs asymptomatic (26%) patients demonstrated that the former were frequently women (58.2% vs 45.3%; P < .001), with a greater incidence of MAEs (20.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001), including higher in-hospital reintervention rates (5.9% vs 1.5%; P = .002) and mortality (5.6% vs 0.7%; log-rank P = .015), and a prolonged length of stay (6.9 vs 3.7 days; P < .0001), despite similar procedural risks. During follow-up, late mortality was greater in the symptomatic cohort (12.2% vs 6.5%; log-rank P = .025), with all treatment-related mortalities limited to the symptomatic group.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significantly greater morbidity and mortality in symptomatic patients undergoing repair compared with asymptomatic patients, despite similar baseline characteristics. Asymptomatic patients treated with TEVAR had no treatment-related mortality during follow-up, with the overall prognosis largely dependent on preexisting comorbidities. These findings, in conjunction with increasing evidence highlighting the risk of disease progression and attendant morbidity associated with these aortic entities, suggest a need for natural history studies and definitive guidelines on the elective repair of IMHs and PAUs.

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.

Intravascular Ultrasound-Assisted Endovascular Exclusion of Penetrating Aortic Ulcers

BACKGROUND

Penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) is an atherosclerotic lesion penetrating the elastic lamina and extending into the media of the aorta. It may evolve into intramural hematoma, focal dissection, pseudoaneurysm, and eventually rupture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a totally intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-assisted endovascular exclusion of PAU.

METHODS

Thirteen consecutive patients (median age 66 years) underwent IVUS-assisted endovascular exclusion of PAU. The primary end points were fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and occurrence of type I primary endoleak. Secondary end points were postoperative mortality and morbidity, arterial access complications, postoperative length of stay in the hospital, and occurrence of type II endoleaks.

RESULTS

The median fluoroscopy time was 4 min (4-5). The median radiation dose was 4.2 mGy (3.9-4.5). A proximal and distal landing zone of at least 2 cm could be obtained in all the patients. No patient presented a type I endoleak. No postoperative mortality, no morbidity, or arterial access complication was observed. The median length of postoperative stay in the hospital was 2 days (2-3). The median length of follow-up was 25 months (9.2-38.7). One late type II endoleak was observed (7.7%), because of reflux from the intercostal arteries, without the need for additional treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

IVUS-assisted endovascular treatment of PAU allows durable exclusion of PAU with a short fluoroscopy time and no need for injection of contrast media. Further series are needed to confirm the results of this preliminary study.

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.

Acute aortic syndromes: diagnosis and management, an update

Acute aortic syndromes (AAS) encompass a constellation of life-threatening medical conditions including classic acute aortic dissection (AAD), intramural haematoma, and penetrating atherosclerotic aortic ulcer. Given the non-specific symptoms and physical signs, a high clinical index of suspicion is necessary to detect the disease before irreversible lethal complications occur. In order to reduce the diagnostic time delay, a comprehensive flowchart for decision-making based on pre-test sensitivity of AAS has been designed by the European Society of Cardiology guidelines on aortic diseases and should be thus applied in the emergency scenario. When the definitive diagnosis is made, prompt and appropriate therapeutic interventions should be undertaken if indicated by a highly specialized aortic team. Urgent surgery for AAD involving the ascending aorta (Type A) and medical therapy alone for AAD not involving the ascending aorta (Type B) are typically recommended. In complicated Type B AAD, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is generally indicated. On the other hand, in uncomplicated Type B AAD, pre-emptive TEVAR rather than medical therapy alone to prevent late complications, while intuitive, requires further study in randomized cohorts. Finally, it should be highlighted that there is an urgent need to increase awareness of AAS worldwide, including dedicated education/prevention programmes, and to improve diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, outcomes, and lifelong surveillance.

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.

Arch and access vessel complications in penetrating aortic ulcer managed with thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Background

To analyze our experience and to describe access and arch-related challenges when performing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs).

Methods

This is a single-center, observational, cohort study. Between October 2003 and February 2019, 48 patients with PAU were identified; 37 (77.1%) treated with TEVAR were retrospectively analyzed. Primary major outcomes were early (<30 days) and late survival, freedom from aortic-related mortality (ARM), and a composite endpoint of arch/vascular access-related complications.

Results

On admission, 17 (45.9%) patients were symptomatic with 4 (10.8%) presenting with rupture. In-hospital mortality was 8.1% (n=3). We observed 10 (27.0%) arch/access-related complications. There were 4 (10.8%) arch issues: 2 transient ischemic attacks and 2 retrograde acute type A dissections which required emergent open conversion for definitive repair. Access issues occurred in 6 (16.2%) patients: 3 (8.1%) required common iliac artery conduit, and 1 (2.7%) patient required iliac artery angioplasty to deliver the stent-graft. In addition, 2 (5.4%) patients developed access complications which required operative repair [femoral patch angioplasty (n=2), and femoral pseudoaneurysmectomy (n=1)]. Arch/access-related mortality rate was 5.4% (n=2) and median follow-up was 24 (range, 1-156; IQR, 3-52) months. Estimated survival was 87.1% (standard error: 0.6; 95% CI: 71.2-84.9%) at 1 year, and 63.3% (SE: 0.9; 95% CI: 44.1-79%) at 4 years. Estimated freedom from reintervention was 88.9% (SE: 0.5; 95% CI: 74.8-95.6%) at 1 year, and 84.2% (SE: 0.7; 95% CI: 67.3-93.2%) at 4 years. No arch/access-related issues developed during the follow-up period.

Conclusions

Our experience confirms that vascular access and aortic arch issues are still a challenging aspect of performing TEVAR for PAUs. Our cumulative 27% rate of access/arch issues is lower than previously reported due to both technological advancements and meticulous management of both access routes and arch anatomy.

Five-year outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair of symptomatic type B penetrating aortic ulcer with intramural hematoma in Chinese patients

Background

The aim of this study is to evaluate the five-year outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) of symptomatic Stanford type B penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) associated with intramural hematoma (IMH) in Chinese patients.

Methods

From January 2009 to April 2013, 118 patients with typical severe acute chest pain were diagnosed with Stanford type B acute aortic syndrome (AAS) in our department and received TEVAR. Within the group, 28 patients were diagnosed with PAU associated with IMH by computed tomography angiography (CTA) and subsequently evaluated with repeated CTA. All 28 patients' clinical and follow-up data were collected for 60 months.

Results

PAU associated with IMH continued to progress for approximately 14 days and sometimes a few days more. Twenty-eight patients underwent TEVAR under general anesthesia via femoral artery access. Technical success was achieved in 100% of cases. Two stent grafts were used in 1 patient to achieve effective coverage of the PAUs and IMH. The follow-up rate was 92.8%. Two patients were lost to follow-up in the 4^th and 16^th months due to relocation. All patients remained free of aortic symptoms during follow-up. Two heavy smoker patients in whom the ostium of the left subclavian artery (LSCA) was completely covered by the graft had transient dizziness upon resumption of smoking during follow-up. There were 2 early type II endoleaks but no aortic expansion. No patient needed reintervention. One patient died in a car accident at 42 months. Four patients safely underwent noncardiovascular surgery. The 1-, 2-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 100%, 100%, and 96.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

The short- and mid-term results of TEVAR treatment for symptomatic Stanford type B PAU associated with IMH in Chinese patients were encouraging. Long-term follow-up is anticipated.

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

BACKGROUND

Type B intramural hematoma (IMH) is considered a low-risk entity for aortic complications if aortic dilation, containing rupture or clinical instability are absent. However, the development of intimal disruptions (ID), present in >40% of cases, poses an unknown risk.

OBJECTIVES

To establish which ID characteristics imply a higher risk of aortic complications and, therefore, merit invasive treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review and a meta-analysis were made following a search in EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO for articles published between January 1995 and December 2017. The combined endpoint was defined as aortic mortality, invasive treatment for aortic disease and/or increase in maximum aortic diameter ≥55 mm. Lesions with communicating orifice ≤3 mm were defined as tiny ID (TID) and those with >3 mm as focal ID (FID).

RESULTS

Six studies with 564 participants diagnosed of type B IMH were included. Incidence of ID was 54.3% (306 individuals): 27.7% (156 individuals) initially met TID criteria; however, 13.9% of these (21 of 151 with morphologic evolution) evolved to FID within the first 6 months. Ninety-two cases suffered clinical aorta-related events (16.3%; mean follow-up range: 15-85 months; median: 52 months). Patients with TID had a similar risk of aorta-related events to those without ID (RR = 0.904; 95% CI, 0.335-2.440; P = 0.842; I² = 42.5%), but lower than those with FID (RR = 0.299; 95% CI, 0.094-0.952; P = 0.041; I² = 26.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Tiny intimal disruption in type B IMH evolution is not related to an increased risk of complications and should not be considered an indication for invasive treatment. However, since 14% of TID evolve to FID within the first 6 months, close follow-up with imaging techniques is advisable.

Aortic intramural hemorrhage: A distinct disease entity with mystery

Aortic intramural hemorrhage (IMH) is one of the disease processes that comprise the spectrum of acute aortic syndrome (AAS) with clinical manifestations and a mortality rate similar to those of classic aortic dissection (AD). However, IMH should be considered as a distinct disease entity rather than a precursor to classic dissection because of differences in their pathology, etiology, natural history, and imaging findings. Multidetector computed tomography (CT) is recommended as the first-line diagnostic imaging modality for IMH, but transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are also helpful. There is still debate over the appropriate treatment of IMH. Medical treatment of type B IMH appears effective and safe, while surgical treatment is recommended for type A IMH. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a promising treatment for selected patients, and more clinical evidence needs to be assembled.

Advances in the diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes: Role of imaging techniques

Aortic diseases include a wide range of pathological conditions: aortic aneurysms, pseudoaneurysms, acute aortic syndromes, atherosclerotic and inflammatory conditions, genetic diseases and congenital anomalies. Acute aortic syndromes have acute onset and may be life-threatening. They include aortic dissection, intramural haematoma, penetrating aortic ulcer and traumatic aortic injury. Pain is the common denominator to all acute aortic syndromes. Pain occurs regardless of age, gender and other associated clinical conditions. In this review, we deal with the main findings in the clinical setting and the most recent indications for diagnostic imaging, which are aimed to start an appropriate treatment and improve the short- and long-term prognosis of these patients.

Thoracic Endovascular Repair of Complicated Penetrating Aortic Ulcer

Purpose: To analyze an 11-year single-center experience of treating complicated penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) using thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Methods: This study included 63 consecutive patients (mean age 69.1±11.5 years; 40 men) with complicated PAU (42 symptomatic, 22 with rupture) who underwent TEVAR between 2002 and 2013. The PAUs were located in the aortic arch (n=11), the descending thoracic aorta (n=43), and the thoracoabdominal aorta (n=9). Results: TEVAR was performed within 14 days of diagnosis in 33 (52.3%) cases (19 ruptures treated immediately); the other 30 (47.6%) patients had an average interval between diagnosis and intervention of 40±39 days. Technical success was 98.4% (62/63). One patient had a type I endoleak after stent-graft repair of a PAU in the aortic arch without great vessel transposition; another procedure was required for carotid-subclavian bypass and proximal stent-graft extension. No patient experienced spinal cord ischemia after TEVAR. Five (7.9%) patients died in-hospital; 3 had severe cardiac complications, 1 died from complications of aortic rupture, and the other succumbed to septic shock. Mean follow-up was 45.6±47.2 months, during which 12 (19.0%) patients needed a secondary intervention because of late endoleaks (n=4, 6.3%) or new complications due to disease progression. Multivariate analysis indicated that a PAU depth >15 mm was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio 6.92, p=0.03). In the biomarker analysis, symptomatic patients had significantly higher D-dimer and troponin levels compared to asymptomatic patients [559.5±460.7 vs 283.2±85.2 µg/L (p=0.016) and 0.22±0.61 vs 0.02±0.03 ng/mL (p=0.04), respectively]. Conclusion: Patients with PAU suffer from underlying severe atherosclerotic disease and have a significant number of cardiovascular comorbidities that lead to relevant mortality and morbidity after TEVAR. As a PAU diameter >15 mm represented high risk for disease progression, these patients may be candidates for early intervention. D-dimer levels may help identify patients at risk and with progression of PAU.

Cardiothoracic surgical emergencies in the intensive care unit

Patients with cardiothoracic surgical emergencies are frequently admitted to the ICU, either prior to operative intervention or after surgery. Recognition and appropriate timing of operative intervention are key factors in improving outcomes. A collaborative team approach with the cardiothoracic service is imperative in managing this patient population.