Positive family history of aortic dissection dramatically increases dissection risk in family members.

OBJECTIVES: Although family members of patients with aortic dissection (AoD) are believed to be at higher risk of AoD, the prognostic value of family history (FH) of aortic dissection (FHAD) in family members of patients with AoD has not been studied rigorously. We seek examine how much a positive FHAD increases the risk of developing new aortic dissection (AoD) among first-degree relatives. METHODS: Patients with AoD at our institution were analyzed for information of FHAD. Positive FHAD referred to that AoD occurred in index patient and one or more first-degree relatives. Negative FHAD was defined as the condition in which only one case of AoD (the index patient) occurred in the family. The age at AoD, exposure years in adulthood before AoD, and annual probability of AoD among first-degree relatives were compared between patients with negative and positive FHADs. RESULTS: FHAD was positive in 32 and negative in 68 among the 100 AoD patients with detailed family history information. Mean age at dissection was 59.9±14.7years. Compared to negative FHAD, patients with positive FHAD dissected at significantly younger age (54.7±16.8 vs 62.4±13.0years, p=0.013), had more AoD events in first-degree relatives (2.3±0.6 vs 1.0±0.0, p<0.001), and shorter exposure years per AoD event (18.3±6.7 vs 43.1±8.5, p<0.001). Annual probability of AoD per first-degree relative was 2.77 times higher in patients with positive than negative FHADs (0.0100±0.0057 vs 0.0036±0.0014, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A positive FHAD confers a significantly increased risk of developing aortic dissection on family members, with a higher annual probability of aortic dissection, a shorter duration of "exposure time" before dissection occurs and a lower mean age at time of dissection.

Twenty-five year outcomes following composite graft aortic root replacement.

BACKGROUND: Operative choices for aortic root disease include traditional root replacement with a composite valved graft as well as various valve-sparing and root repair procedures. OBJECTIVES: To report our experience with traditional composite graft aortic root replacement by a single surgeon over a 25-year period in 449 patients, focusing on long-term survival and freedom from late reoperation and adverse events. METHODS: The coronary button technique was used in all patients. Mean age was 56.1 ± 14.0 years (range 14-87) with 83% males (373/449). Valve prosthesis was mechanical in 343 (76%) and bioprosthetic in 106 (24%). A modified Cabrol procedure (Dacron coronary graft) was employed in 10% (45/449) and concomitant coronary artery bypass graft in 10.9% (49/449). There were 15.8% (71/449) urgent/emergent and 8.2% (37/449) redo procedures. Survival follow-up was 100%. Mean follow-up was 7.0 ± 5.1 years (range 0.1-24.8). RESULTS: Operative mortality occurred in 14 patients (3.1%) and was 2.2% (9/418) in non-dissection and 1.9% (7/361) in elective first-time operations. Stroke and re-exploration for bleeding occurred in nine (2.0%) and 20 (4.5%) patients, respectively. Major late events included bleeding in 2.5% (11/435) and thromboembolism in 1.1% (5/435). At 5, 10, and 20 years, freedom from major events and reoperations on the root were 97.8, 95.4, and 94.39%, and 99.0, 99.0, and 97.9%, respectively. Survival in patients aged <60 years was 92.0, 90.1, and 79.8% at five, 10, and 20 years versus 88.4, 67.9, and 42.6% in patients aged ≥60 years (p = 0.001). Compared with age- and gender-matched controls, survival was not significantly different (p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Composite graft aortic root replacement is associated with low operative risk, excellent long-term survival, and low incidence of reoperation and late events.

Do Familial Aortic Dissections Tend to Occur at the Same Age?

BACKGROUND: Prediction of the age at aortic dissection for family members of aortic dissection patients would enhance early detection and clinical management. We sought to determine whether these dissections tend to cluster by age in family members of the dissection patients. METHODS: Ages at dissection were examined, including 51 sporadic dissectors (one dissection in family) and 39 familial dissectors (two or more dissections in family) from 16 families. Differences between sporadic and familial dissectors and relationships between ages at dissection in family members were analyzed by linear regression and clustering analysis. RESULTS: Age at dissection was significantly younger in familial versus sporadic dissectors (54.1 ± 15.2 years versus 63.1±12.4 years, p = 0.002). Regression analysis of pairs of family member ages at dissection found a moderately close linear fit (R2 = 0.35). Cluster analysis indicated that age at onset of family dissectors increases as age of proband dissector increases. More than 50% of familial dissections occurred within 10 years of the median onset age for any given age decade. For familial dissectors with onset age of 30 to 49 years, 71% of other family member dissections also occurred at age 30 to 49 years, and no dissections occurred above the age of 63 years. For familial dissectors with onset age of 60 to 79 years, 80% of other family member dissections occurred beyond the age of 50 years. CONCLUSIONS: Familial dissections occur earlier than sporadic dissections. Dissections cluster by age in families, and age at onset can predict the age of other dissectors. This finding argues for consideration of prophylactic resection of an aneurysm in family members approaching the age at onset of prior thoracic aortic dissection.