Management of Symptomatic Spontaneous Isolated Superior Mesenteric Artery Dissection: A Single Centre Experience with Mid Term Follow Up.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report a single centre management experience and mid term outcomes for symptomatic spontaneous isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection (SISMAD). METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study. Between 1 August 2012, and 30 June 2018, consecutive patients with symptomatic SISMAD were included. Patient demographics, clinical symptoms, comorbidities, risk factors, and dissection characteristics were obtained. The treatment regimens and clinical and follow up outcomes were reviewed and analysed. A chi square test, Fisher's exact test, or one way analysis of variance was used to compare variables between the groups. Binary logistic regression was used to determine predictive factors for failed conservative treatment. The cumulative rate of complete dissection remodelling was calculated using a Kaplan-Meier curve. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (mean age, 56.0 ± 9.3 years) were included. Patients at risk of intestinal ischaemia or dissecting aneurysm rupture were considered to be high risk patients (Group 1, n = 16) and received primary endovascular treatment. The remaining patients were considered low risk (Group 2, n = 46) and received primary conservative treatment. Symptom relief was observed in 82.6% of patients in Group 2. Finally, failed conservative treatment was observed in 50% of the low risk patients. Dissection length ≥50 mm was an independent risk factor for failed conservative treatment (p = .019; OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.29-16.98). During a median follow up of 30.5 months (interquartile range, 17.5, 58.3), patients with stents had a higher complete dissection remodelling rate than those without stents. CONCLUSION: This study found that conservative treatment showed satisfactory symptom resolution for low risk SISMAD patients. Endovascular stenting was associated with a high technical success and dissection remodelling rate. This treatment modality might be reserved for patients with high risk SISMAD or failed conservative treatment. In addition, a dissection length ≥50 mm was a risk factor for failed conservative treatment.

Factors Associated with Failed Conservative Management in Symptomatic Isolated Mesenteric Artery Dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with conservative management failure in patients with symptomatic isolated mesenteric artery dissection. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic isolated mesenteric artery dissection who underwent conservative therapy as first line treatment between February 2010 and May 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Conservative management failure was defined as the persistence or aggravation of symptoms and signs, increasing aneurysmal dilation, or new appearance of a dissecting aneurysm after conservative management. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors for failure of conservative management. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients (115 men, 8 women, mean age, 53.7 ± 6.1 years) were included in this study. Conservative management was successful in 89 (72.4%) patients but failed in the remaining 34 (27.6%) patients. Of the 89 for whom conservative management was successful, all of the symptoms were eliminated (n = 81) or relieved (n = 8) within 3.8 ± 0.7 days after conservative management. All of the 34 patients in whom conservative management failed underwent successful endovascular stenting. Failure of conservative management was associated with type II IMADs as defined by the Sakamoto classification (meaning that there is an entry tear, but no re-entry, and still no thrombosis of false lumen, odds ratio: 33.76; 95% confidence interval 8.65-131.85; p < .001) and with ≥90% luminal stenosis (odds ratio 40.70; 95% confidence interval: 3.76-440.07; p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Conservative management can be used successfully in most patients with symptomatic isolated mesenteric artery dissection. Risk factors for failed conservative treatment were type II IMADs and degree of luminal stenosis ≥90%.

Endovascular Treatment of Patients with Isolated Mesenteric Artery Dissection Aneurysm: Bare Stents Alone Versus Stent Assisted Coiling.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the outcomes of endovascular treatment with bare stents alone versus stent assisted coiling in isolated mesenteric artery dissection (IMAD) aneurysms. METHODS: Patients with an IMAD aneurysm who underwent endovascular stenting between February 2010 and February 2017 at one of three institutions were included in this study. Data regarding technical success, procedure time, symptom resolution, complications, changes in IMAD aneurysm, and stent patency were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (35 men) were included, 27 treated with bare stents alone and 11 treated with stent assisted coiling. Technical success was achieved in 100% of patients treated with bare stents and in 81.8% of those treated with stent assisted coiling (p = 0.078). The mean procedure times were 62.6 ± 5.3 min for treatment with bare stents and 116.4 ± 8.4 min for stent assisted coiling (p < 0.001). A total of 23 patients had persistent symptoms before stenting; all symptoms were resolved within 3.0 ± 0.7 days. No procedure related major complications occurred. Over 30.2 ± 18.1 months of follow up, complete resolution of the IMAD aneurysm was achieved in all patients; good stent patency and in stent re-stenosis were achieved in 65.8% and 34.2% patients, respectively. There were no occlusions of the stented arteries. CONCLUSIONS: Bare stents alone and stent assisted coiling have high technical success rates and demonstrate good intermediate patency in patients with an IMAD aneurysm. Bare stents alone may serve as an alternative to stent assisted coiling for the management of IMAD aneurysm.