4.0 Article

False lumen being larger than true lumen is associated with late aortic events in uncomplicated type B aortic dissection

Journal

INTERACTIVE CARDIOVASCULAR AND THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 34, Issue 6, Pages 1132-1140

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivac003

Keywords

Uncomplicated; Stanford type B; Aortic dissection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection with a larger false lumen than true lumen have a higher risk of aortic events, but comparatively lower mortality rates.
OBJECTIVES: In uncomplicated type B aortic dissection, a large false lumen (FL) is reportedly a risk factor for late aortic events. However, it is unclear how the relationship between the false and true lumen (TL) diameters affects the dissected aorta. This study aimed to evaluate the impact on clinical outcomes of the FL being larger than the TL. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 111 consecutive patients with uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection between 2004 and 2018. We divided the patients into group A (FL > TL; n = 51) and group B (FL <= TL; n = 60), and compared the outcomes. The endpoints were aortic events, including surgery for aortic dissection and indication for surgery, and mortality. RESULTS: The 5-year incidence rates of aortic events were 68.4% in Group A and 33.6% in Group B (P = 0.002). The 5-year all-cause mortality rates were 5.3% in Group A and 21.9% in Group B (P = 0.003). The multivariable analyses revealed that FL > TL was an independent factor associated with aortic events (adjusted hazard ratio 2.482, 95% confidence interval 1.467-4.198, P < 0.001), but had low mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.209, 95% confidence interval 0.073-0.597, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection with FL > TL at admission are at increased risk of aortic events but improve mortality compared to patients with FL <= TL.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available