4.4 Article

A Systematic Histopathologic Evaluation of Type-A Aortic Dissections Implies a Uniform Multiple-Hit Causation

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcdd8020012

关键词

acute aortic syndrome; cardiovascular disease; aorta

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pathological features of TAAD include moderate elastic fiber fragmentation/loss, mucoid extracellular matrix accumulation, among others, while the control group shows fewer of these characteristics. Based on the study, it can be hypothesized that TAAD is associated with developmental defects of the ascending aorta and a triple-hit mechanism.
(1) Background: The pathophysiologic basis of an acute type A aortic dissection (TAAD) is largely unknown. In an effort to evaluate vessel wall defects, we systematically studied aortic specimens in TAAD patients. (2) Methods: Ascending aortic wall specimens (n = 58, mean age 63 years) with TAAD were collected. Autopsy tissues (n = 17, mean age 63 years) served as controls. All sections were studied histopathologically. (3) Results: Pathomorphology in TAAD showed predominantly moderate elastic fiber fragmentation/loss, elastic fiber thinning, elastic fiber degeneration, mucoid extracellular matrix accumulation, smooth muscle cell nuclei loss, and overall medial degeneration. The control group showed significantly fewer signs of those histopathological features (none-mild, p = 0.00). It was concluded that the dissection plane consistently coincides with the vasa vasorum network, and that TAAD associates with a significantly thinner intimal layer p = 0.005). (4) Conclusions: On the basis of the systematic evaluation and the consistent presence of diffuse, pre-existing medial defects, we hypothesize that TAAD relates to a developmental defect of the ascending aorta and is caused by a triple-hit mechanism that involves (I) an intimal tear; and (II) a diseased media, which allows (III) propagation of the tear towards the plane of the vasa vasorum where the dissection further progresses.

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

4.4
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