4.1 Article

Neovascularization with chronic inflammation characterizes ascending aortic dissection

Journal

ANATOLIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages 289-295

Publisher

TURKISH SOC CARDIOLOGY
DOI: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2018.42223

Keywords

neovascularization; ascending aortic dissection; chronic inflammation; CD31

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Neovascularization of the aortic wall may be associated with aortic dissection (AD). Aortic wall endothelial CD31 deposition together with chronic inflammation indicates angiogenesis that may lead to tissue disruption. We studied the presence of neovascularization of the ascending aortic wall by characterizing CD31 positive endothelial cells. Methods: Aortic wall routine histology and immunohistochemistry for CD31, T- and B-lymphocytes, plasma cells, macrophages, endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, and cell proliferation were performed on 35 selected patients who underwent surgery for the ascending aorta, and the samples were grouped according to the presence of AD. Results: Three subjects with Marfan syndrome were excluded from the study. A total of 14 out of 32 patients had AD. A total of 18 patients were operated on due to dilatation only. Chronic inflammation of the adventitia (p=0.003), media (p=0.001), and intima (p=0.005) was increased in AD. Neovascularization was predominant in the outer third medial layer in AD (p=0.037), corresponding to the site of aortic wall disruption. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that neovascularization was associated with AD (AUC 0.750; SE 0.092; p=0.022; 95% CI 0.570-0.930). Conclusion: Endothelial immunohistochemistry confirms neovascularization of the outer third medial layer during AD. Aortic wall remodeling including neovascularization characterizes AD. Chronic inflammation and neovascularization of the dilated ascending aorta suggest susceptibility for AD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available