4.6 Review

Comparison of idiopathic (isolated) aortitis and giant cell arteritis-related aortitis. A French retrospective multicenter study of 117 patients

期刊

AUTOIMMUNITY REVIEWS
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 571-576

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2016.02.016

关键词

Aortitis; Giant cell arteritis; Idiopathic aortitis; Isolated aortitis; Aortic aneurysm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare clinical/imaging findings and outcome in patients with idiopathic (isolated aortitis, IA) and with giant cell arteritis (GCA)-related aortitis. Methods: Patients from 11 French internal medicine departments were retrospectively included. Aortitis was defined by aortic wall, thickening >2 mm and/or an aortic aneurysm on CT-scan, associated to inflammatory syndrome. Patients with GCA had at least 3 ACR criteria. Aortic events (aneurysm, dissection, aortic surgeries) were reported, and free of aortic events-survival were compared. Results: Among 191 patients with non-infectious aortitis, 73 with GCA and 44 with IA were included. Patients with IA were younger (65 vs 70 years, p = 0.003) and comprised more past/current smokers (43 vs 15%, p = 0.0007). Aortic aneurisms were more frequent (38% vs 20%, p = 0.03), and aortic wall thickening was more pronounced in IA. During follow-up (median = 34 months), subsequent development of aortic aneurysm was significantly lower in GCA when compared to IA (p = 0.009). GCA patients required significantly less aortic surgery during follow-up than IA patients (p = 0.02). Mean age, sex ratio, inflammatory parameters, and free of aortic aneurism survival were equivalent in patients with IA >= 60 years when compared to patients with GCA-related aortitis. Conclusions: IA is more severe than aortitis related to GCA, with higher proportions of aortic aneurism at diagnosis and during follow-up. IA is a heterogeneous disease and its prognosis is worse in younger patients <60 years. Most patients with IA >= 60 years share many features with GCA-related aortitis. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据