کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
2953260 | 1577402 | 2008 | 7 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
![عکس صفحه اول مقاله: The Role of False Lumen Size in Prediction of In-Hospital Complications After Acute Type B Aortic Dissection The Role of False Lumen Size in Prediction of In-Hospital Complications After Acute Type B Aortic Dissection](/preview/png/2953260.png)
ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine whether false lumen size predicts in-hospital complications for acute type B aortic dissection.BackgroundThe incidence of complications developing in patients with acute type B aortic dissection has been high. However, methods for recognizing high-risk patients have not been well-studied. We used quantitative analysis by computed tomography (CT) to predict the occurrence of in-hospital complications.MethodsFifty-five consecutive patients with acute type B aortic dissection documented by CT imaging were analyzed. They were divided into groups, with and without in-hospital complications, and compared regarding maximal aortic diameter (MAD), maximal false lumen area (MFLA), minimal true lumen area (MTLA), branch-vessel involvement (BVI), and longitudinal length (LL) of aortic dissection.ResultsThere were 31 patients with a stable course (group 1) and 24 patients who developed complications (group 2). The MFLA of group 2 was significantly larger than that of group 1 (group 1 vs. group 2 = 577.7 ± 273.2 mm2 vs. 1,899.3 ± 1,642.4 mm2, p < 0.001). The BVI number was also higher in group 2 (group 1 vs. group 2 = 1.0 ± 1.1 vs. 3.3 ± 2.0, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, only MFLA and BVI number were independent predictors of in-hospital complications. Patients with initial MFLA ≥922 mm2 or BVI number ≥2 showed a significantly higher incidence of in-hospital complications than the other patients (p < 0.001).ConclusionsA large MFLA and a higher BVI number are powerful predictors of in-hospital complications after acute type B aortic dissection.
Journal: Journal of the American College of Cardiology - Volume 52, Issue 14, 30 September 2008, Pages 1170–1176