4.4 Article

Comparison of Outcomes in DeBakey Type AI Versus All Aortic Dissection

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 122, 期 4, 页码 689-695

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.04.042

关键词

-

资金

  1. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
  2. Medtronic
  3. Varbedian Aortic Research Fund
  4. Hewlett Foundation
  5. Mardigian Foundation
  6. UM Faculty Group Practice
  7. Terumo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The DeBakey classification divides type A acute aortic dissection (AAD) into type I and type II; the latter limited to the ascending aorta. We endeavored to examine differences in DeBakey groups in a contemporary registry. We divided 1,872 patients with noniatrogenic AAD from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection into type I (n = 1691, 90.3 %) and type II (n = 181, 9.7%). Patients with type II AAD were older. On presentation, patients with type I AAD reported more back and abdominal pain and were more likely to have pulse deficit. Intramural hematoma was more frequent in type II AAD. Most patients with both types were treated surgically. Lower rates of renal failure, coma, mesenteric and limb ischemia were noted in those with type II AAD. In-hospital death was less frequent (16.6% vs 22.5%) after type II AAD, a trend that did not reach significance. There was no difference in the incidence of new dissection, rapid aortic growth, late aortic intervention or survival at 5 years. In conclusion, AAD limited to the ascending aorta (DeBakey type II) appears to be associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with dissection that extend to the aortic arch or beyond. Although fewer dissection-related complications were noted in patients presenting with type II AAD, as was a trend toward reduced in-hospital mortality, 5-year survival and descending aortic sequelae are not reduced in this contemporary report from International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
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