Thoracic Aortic Syndromes.

Aortic dissection (AD) is a lethal, treatable disruption of the aortic vessel wall. It often presents without classic features, mimicking symptoms of other conditions, and diagnosis is often delayed. Established high-risk markers of AD should be sought and indicate advanced aortic imaging with CT, MRI, or TEE. Treatment is immediate surgical evaluation, aggressive symptom relief, and reduction of the force of blood against the aortic wall by control of heart rate, followed by blood pressure.

Aortic intramural hemorrhage: A distinct disease entity with mystery.

Aortic intramural hemorrhage (IMH) is one of the disease processes that comprise the spectrum of acute aortic syndrome (AAS) with clinical manifestations and a mortality rate similar to those of classic aortic dissection (AD). However, IMH should be considered as a distinct disease entity rather than a precursor to classic dissection because of differences in their pathology, etiology, natural history, and imaging findings. Multidetector computed tomography (CT) is recommended as the first-line diagnostic imaging modality for IMH, but transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are also helpful. There is still debate over the appropriate treatment of IMH. Medical treatment of type B IMH appears effective and safe, while surgical treatment is recommended for type A IMH. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a promising treatment for selected patients, and more clinical evidence needs to be assembled.

Aortic Dissection Without Intimal Tear (Aortic Intramural Hemorrhage): Its Incidence & Prognosis Associated with Medical Treatment / 대한내과학회지

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to verify the incidence and prognosis of aortic dissection without intimal tear(aortic intramural hemorrhage, IMH) who took only medical treatment in special reference to Stanford type A. METHODS: We analysed the patients of IMH confirmed by TEE, CT, MRI, angiography or CT-angiography in Seoul National University Hospital between 1987 and 1995, retrospectively. RESULTS: The diagnosis of IMH was established in 20 of 143 patients(14%). Nine patients were Stanford type A, 11 patients were type B. The longitudinal extent varied between 8 and 30cm, and IMH size varied between 10 and 30mm. Surgery was performed in two of type A patients because of persistent chest pain and one of type B patients because of progressive aortic dilatation despite of medical treatment. Follow-up imaging studies (mean follow-up period of 20.0+/-2.0 months) were done in 10/17 patients who were treated medically. Complete resolution of IMH was observed in seven cases, four of them were Stanford type A, and the mean size of IMH was 12mm(10-l7mm). Partial resolution was observed in one case, Stanford type A, with the IMH size of 15mm. There was no significant change in the size of IMH in two cases. Initial mean size of IMH was 25mm. In no case, aortic rupture or death was observed during the follow up period. CONCLUSION: In the management of the patient with IMH, same surgical indications as classic aortic dissection have been advocated based on similar prognosis. However our study showed better prognosis in IMH patients treated medically compared to the previous publications. Therefore, even in cases of proximal IMH, medical treatment should be seriously considered.

Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcome of Aortic Intramural Hemorrhage Compared with Acute Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND: Aortic intramural hemorrhage (IMH), which presents clinical manifestations identical to acute aortic dissection, is suggested to have different pathology and pathophysiology. The purposes of this study were to diagnose IMH by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) prospectively and to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcome of IMH with those of aortic dissection. METHODS: Between August 1991 and November 1996, 27 IMH and 73 acute aortic dissection were diagnosed using TEE in 202 consecutive patients with suspected aortic dissection. TEE diagnoses of IMH and aortic dissection were initially compared with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging and later confirmed by operative findings (n=39) or follow-up changes (n=12). RESULTS: In the 49 patients whose diagnosis was confirmed by operation or follow-up changes, the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of IMH were 27 of 27 (100%) and 20 of 22 (91%), respectively. There were 11 deaths (15%) in acute aortic dissection and 1 death (4%) in IMH during follow-up of 1.7+/-1.5 years (p=NS). Stanford classification and types of treatment were not related to death in both groups. Complications were less frequently noted in IMH (3/27) than in acute aortic dissection (24/73) (p<0.001) and no death occurred in uncomplicated IMH who were medically treated. Follow-up study of 12 IMH patients showed 8 complete resolution, 3 regression, 1 progression. CONCLUSION: TEE is very useful in diagnosis of IMH and IMH has better outcome than the aortic dissection due to absence of communication and intimal tear.

Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcome of Aortic Intramural Hemorrhage Compared with Acute Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND: Aortic intramural hemorrhage (IMH), which presents clinical manifestations identical to acute aortic dissection, is suggested to have different pathology and pathophysiology. The purposes of this study were to diagnose IMH by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) prospectively and to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcome of IMH with those of aortic dissection. METHODS: Between August 1991 and November 1996, 27 IMH and 73 acute aortic dissection were diagnosed using TEE in 202 consecutive patients with suspected aortic dissection. TEE diagnoses of IMH and aortic dissection were initially compared with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging and later confirmed by operative findings (n=39) or follow-up changes (n=12). RESULTS: In the 49 patients whose diagnosis was confirmed by operation or follow-up changes, the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of IMH were 27 of 27 (100%) and 20 of 22 (91%), respectively. There were 11 deaths (15%) in acute aortic dissection and 1 death (4%) in IMH during follow-up of 1.7+/-1.5 years (p=NS). Stanford classification and types of treatment were not related to death in both groups. Complications were less frequently noted in IMH (3/27) than in acute aortic dissection (24/73) (p<0.001) and no death occurred in uncomplicated IMH who were medically treated. Follow-up study of 12 IMH patients showed 8 complete resolution, 3 regression, 1 progression. CONCLUSION: TEE is very useful in diagnosis of IMH and IMH has better outcome than the aortic dissection due to absence of communication and intimal tear.