4.6 Article

The complex interplay among atherosclerosis, inflammation, and degeneration in ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.08.108

关键词

aortic aneurysm; aortitis; atherosclerosis; aortic media degeneration; cardiac surgery

资金

  1. Fanti Melloni Foundation, University of Bologna

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the histopathological findings of a large series of ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) surgical specimens applying the updated classification on noninflammatory degenerative and inflammatory aortic diseases proposed by the Association for European Cardiovascular Pathology and the Society for Cardiovascular Pathology clinicopathological correlations. Methods: A total of 255 patients surgically treated for ascending TAA were enrolled. Surgical ascending aorta specimens were examined. Results: The histopathological substrate of ascending TAAs was mainly degenerative (67.5%), but with a remarkable prevalence of atherosclerotic lesions (18.8%) and aortitis (13.7%). Degenerative patients more frequently had bicuspid aortic valve (37.2%; P = .002). Patients in the atherosclerotic group were older (median age, 69 years; P < .001), more often with a history of hypertension (87.5%; P = .059), hypercholesterolemia (75%; P = .019), diabetes (16.6%; P = .054), current smoking (22.9%; P = .066), and a history of coronary artery disease (18.7%; P = .063). Patients with aortitis represented the older group (median age, 75 years, P < .001), were mostly females (68.6%; P < .001), and had a larger ascending aorta diameter (median, 56 mm; P < .001). Both patients with atherosclerosis and aortitis presented a higher incidence of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm (20.8% and 22.8%, respectively; P < .001). Conclusions: Although degenerative histopathology is the most frequent substrate in ascending TAA, atherosclerosis and inflammation significantly contribute to the development of chronic aortic thoracic disease.

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