English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective:  The optimal treatment modality for retrograde type A intramural hematoma (IMH) remains debatable. This study evaluated and compared surgical outcomes and aortic remodeling after open aortic repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with retrograde type A IMH with a primary intimal tear or ulcer like projection in the descending aorta.   Methods:  A single center, retrospective observational study was performed on patients with retrograde type A IMH undergoing either open aortic repair and TEVAR. From June 2009 and November 2019, 46 patients with retrograde type A IMH who received either open aortic repair or TEVAR at our institution were reviewed for clinical outcomes, including post-operative mortality/morbidity, re-intervention rate and aortic remodeling.   Results:  33 patients underwent open aortic repair and 13 underwent TEVAR. Median age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR] 15.2 years) and 63 years (IQR 22.5 years) for the open repair group and TEVAR group, respectively. The median duration of follow-up for TEVAR patients was 37.6 months and 40.3 months for open aortic repair. No difference in the 5-year estimated freedom from all-cause mortality (82.1 vs. 87.8%,  p  = 0.34), re-intervention (82.5 vs. 93.8%,  p  = 0.08), and aortic-related mortality (88.9 vs. 90.9%,  p  = 0.88) were observed between the TEVAR and open repair group, respectively; however, the open repair group had a significantly higher 30-day composite morbidity (39.4 vs. 7.7%,  p  = 0.037). All patients from both treatment groups had complete resolution of the IMH in the ascending aorta. With regard to the descending thoracic aorta, TEVAR group had a significantly greater regression in the diameter of the false lumen or IMH thickness when compared to the open repair group [median 14mm (IQR 10.1) vs. 5mm (IQR 9.5),  p  < 0.001].   Conclusion:  TEVAR and open aortic repair were both effective treatments for retrograde type A IMH, in which no residual ascending aortic IMH was observed during follow-up. TEVAR was also associated with lower post-operative composite morbidities and better descending aortic remodeling. In selected patients with retrograde type A IMH, TEVAR might be a safe, effective alternative treatment modality.

frontiers in cardiovascular medicine

Outcome Comparison Between Open and Endovascular Aortic Repair for Retrograde Type A Intramural Hematoma With Intimal Tear in the Descending Thoracic Aorta: A Retrospective Observational Study