4.6 Review

Large-vessel involvement and aortic dilation in giant-cell arteritis. A multicenter study of 549 patients

期刊

AUTOIMMUNITY REVIEWS
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 391-398

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2017.11.029

关键词

Giant-cell arteritis; Aortitis; Large-vessel involvement; Aortic dilation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Large-vessel involvement (LVI) can occur in giant-cell arteritis (GCA) and may represent a distinct disease subgroup with a higher risk for aortic dilation. This study aimed to better characterize the presentation and evolution of LVI in patients with GCA. Patients and methods: A retrospective multicenter study enrolled 248 GCA patients with LVI and 301 GCA patients without LVI on imaging. Factors associated with aortic dilation were identified in a multivariable model. Results: The patients with LVI were younger (p < 0.0001), more likely to be women (p = 0.01), and showed fewer cephalic symptoms (p < 0.0001) and polymyalgia rheumatica (p = 0.001) but more extracranial vascular symptoms (p = 0.05) than the patients without LVI. Glucocorticoids (GC) management did not differ between the two groups, but the GC discontinuation rate was lower in the patients with LVI (p = 0.0003). Repeated aortic imaging procedures were performed at 19 months [range: 5-162 months] and 17 months [range: 6-168 months] after diagnosis in 154 patients with LVI and 123 patients without LVI, respectively, of whom 21% and 7%, respectively, presented new aortic dilations (p = 0.0008). In the patients with LVI, aortic dilation occurred on an aorta segment shown to be inflammatory on previous imaging in 94% of patients. In the multivariate analysis, LVI was the strongest predictor of aortic dilation (hazard ratio: 3.16 [range: 134-7.48], p = 0.009). Conclusions: LVI represents a distinct disease pattern of GCA with an increased risk of aortic dilation. Control of the aortic morphology during follow-up is required. (C) 2018 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