The aortic paradox: a nationwide analysis of 523 994 individual echocardiograms exploring fatal aortic dissection.

IF 6.7 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1093/ehjci/jeae140
Elizabeth D Paratz, James Nadel, Julie Humphries, Stephanie Rowe, Louise Fahy, Andre La Gerche, David Prior, David Celermajer, Geoffrey Strange, David Playford
{"title":"The aortic paradox: a nationwide analysis of 523 994 individual echocardiograms exploring fatal aortic dissection.","authors":"Elizabeth D Paratz, James Nadel, Julie Humphries, Stephanie Rowe, Louise Fahy, Andre La Gerche, David Prior, David Celermajer, Geoffrey Strange, David Playford","doi":"10.1093/ehjci/jeae140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Increasing aortic dilation increases the risk of aortic dissection. Nevertheless, dissection occurs at dimensions below guideline-directed cut-offs for prophylactic surgery. Currently, there are no large-scale population imaging data assessing aortic dimensions before dissection.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Patients within the National Echo Database of Australia were stratified according to absolute, height-indexed, and body surface area (BSA)-indexed aortic dimensions. Fatal thoracic aortic dissections (ICD-10-AM Code I71) were identified via linkage with the National Death Index. A total of 524 994 individuals were assessed, comprising patients with normal aortic dimensions (n = 460 992), mild dilation (n = 53 402), moderate dilation (n = 10 029), and severe dilation (n = 572). A total of 274 992 (52.4%) were males, with a median age of 64 years and a median follow-up time of 6.9 years. Eight hundred and ninety-nine fatal aortic dissections occurred (normal diameter = 610, mildly dilated aorta = 215, moderately dilated = 53, and severely dilated = 21). Using normal aortas as the reference population, odds of fatal dissection increased with aortic diameter [mild = odds ratio (OR) 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.61-3.56; moderate = OR 4.0, 95% CI 3.02-5.30; severe = OR 28.72, 95% CI 18.44-44.72]. Due to the much larger number of patients without severe aortic dilation, 97.7% of fatal aortic dissections occurred in non-severely dilated aortas. Following sensitivity analysis, severe aortic dilation was responsible for at most 24.4% of fatal aortic dissections. The results were robust for absolute, height-indexed, or BSA-indexed aortic measurements.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although severe aortic dilatation is associated with a near-30-fold increase in fatal dissections, severely dilated aortas are implicated in only 2.3-24.4% of fatal dissections. This highlights the 'aortic paradox' and limitations of current guidelines. Future studies should seek to refine risk predictors in patients without severe aortic dilation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12026,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging","volume":" ","pages":"1423-1431"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jeae140","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Increasing aortic dilation increases the risk of aortic dissection. Nevertheless, dissection occurs at dimensions below guideline-directed cut-offs for prophylactic surgery. Currently, there are no large-scale population imaging data assessing aortic dimensions before dissection.

Methods and results: Patients within the National Echo Database of Australia were stratified according to absolute, height-indexed, and body surface area (BSA)-indexed aortic dimensions. Fatal thoracic aortic dissections (ICD-10-AM Code I71) were identified via linkage with the National Death Index. A total of 524 994 individuals were assessed, comprising patients with normal aortic dimensions (n = 460 992), mild dilation (n = 53 402), moderate dilation (n = 10 029), and severe dilation (n = 572). A total of 274 992 (52.4%) were males, with a median age of 64 years and a median follow-up time of 6.9 years. Eight hundred and ninety-nine fatal aortic dissections occurred (normal diameter = 610, mildly dilated aorta = 215, moderately dilated = 53, and severely dilated = 21). Using normal aortas as the reference population, odds of fatal dissection increased with aortic diameter [mild = odds ratio (OR) 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.61-3.56; moderate = OR 4.0, 95% CI 3.02-5.30; severe = OR 28.72, 95% CI 18.44-44.72]. Due to the much larger number of patients without severe aortic dilation, 97.7% of fatal aortic dissections occurred in non-severely dilated aortas. Following sensitivity analysis, severe aortic dilation was responsible for at most 24.4% of fatal aortic dissections. The results were robust for absolute, height-indexed, or BSA-indexed aortic measurements.

Conclusion: Although severe aortic dilatation is associated with a near-30-fold increase in fatal dissections, severely dilated aortas are implicated in only 2.3-24.4% of fatal dissections. This highlights the 'aortic paradox' and limitations of current guidelines. Future studies should seek to refine risk predictors in patients without severe aortic dilation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主动脉悖论:对 523,994 例探查致命性主动脉夹层的个体超声心动图进行的全国性分析。
背景:主动脉扩张的增加会增加主动脉夹层的风险。尽管如此,主动脉夹层发生时的尺寸仍低于指南指导的预防性手术临界值。目前还没有评估主动脉夹层前主动脉尺寸的大规模人群成像数据:方法:根据主动脉绝对尺寸、身高指数和体表面积(BSA)指数对澳大利亚国家回声数据库(NEDA)中的患者进行分层。通过与国家死亡指数(National Death Index)连接,确定了致死性胸主动脉夹层(ICD-10-AM 代码 I79):对 524,994 人进行了评估,其中包括主动脉尺寸正常(n = 460,992 人)、轻度扩张(n = 53,402 人)、中度扩张(n = 10,029 人)和重度扩张(n = 572 人)的患者。274992人(52.4%)为男性,中位年龄为64岁,中位随访时间为6.9年。发生了 899 例致命的主动脉夹层(正常直径 = 610 例,轻度扩张主动脉 = 215 例,中度扩张 = 53 例,重度扩张 = 21 例)。以正常主动脉为参照人群,致命夹层的几率随主动脉直径的增加而增加(轻度 = OR 3.05,95% 置信区间 (CI) 2.61-3.56;中度 = OR 4.0,95% 置信区间 (CI) 3.02-5.30;重度 = OR 28.72,95% 置信区间 (CI) 18.44-44.72)。由于没有严重主动脉扩张的患者人数更多,97.7%的致命主动脉夹层发生在非严重扩张的主动脉上。经过敏感性分析,严重主动脉扩张最多导致 24.4% 的致命主动脉夹层。绝对值、身高指数或BSA指数的主动脉测量结果都很可靠:结论:虽然严重的主动脉扩张与致命夹层增加近 30 倍有关,但只有 2.3-24.4% 的致命夹层与严重扩张的主动脉有关。这凸显了 "主动脉悖论 "和现行指南的局限性。未来的研究应努力完善无严重主动脉扩张患者的风险预测指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging
European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
9.70%
发文量
708
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging is a monthly international peer reviewed journal dealing with Cardiovascular Imaging. It is an official publication of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, a branch of the European Society of Cardiology. The journal aims to publish the highest quality material, both scientific and clinical from all areas of cardiovascular imaging including echocardiography, magnetic resonance, computed tomography, nuclear and invasive imaging. A range of article types will be considered, including original research, reviews, editorials, image focus, letters and recommendation papers from relevant groups of the European Society of Cardiology. In addition it provides a forum for the exchange of information on all aspects of cardiovascular imaging.
期刊最新文献
Alarming Complication: Chest Compression-induced Right Ventricular Lead Perforation. Accurate prediction of systolic peak-to-peak gradient in children with pulmonary valve stenosis. Interrupted Aortic Arch with Complete Atrioventricular Canal Defect: Insights from CT Imaging. Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection: Patent Foramen Ovale - The "Hidden Door" to the Risk of Stroke? Unusual Presentation of Type A Aortic Dissection with Intimal Flap Prolapse into the Left Ventricle.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1