Acute Type B Intramural Hematoma: Novel Insights in the Endovascular Era.

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology and behavior of acute type B intramural hematoma (TBIMH) is poorly understood. The purpose of this study is to characterize the pathophysiology, fate, and outcomes of TBIMH in the endovascular era. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a US Aortic Database identified 70 patients with TBIMH from 2008 to 2022. Patients were divided into groups and analyzed based upon subsequent management: early thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR; Group 1) or hospital discharge on optimal medical therapy (OMT) (Group 2). RESULTS: Of 70 total patients, 43% (30/70) underwent TEVAR (Group 1) and 57% (40/70) were discharged on OMT (Group 2). There were no significant differences in age, demographics, or comorbidities between groups. Indications for TEVAR in Group 1 were as follows: 1) Penetrating atheroscletoic ulcer (PAU) or ulcer-like projection (n = 26); 2) Descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (n = 3); or 3) Progression to type B aortic dissection (TBAD) (n = 2). Operative mortality was zero. No patient suffered a stroke or spinal cord ischemia. During the follow-up period, 50% (20/40) of Group 2 patients required delayed surgical intervention, including TEVAR in 14 patients and open repair in 6 patients. Indications for surgical intervention were as follows: 1) Development of a PAU / ulcer-like projection (n = 13); 2) Progression to TBAD (n = 3), or 3) Concomitant aneurysmal disease (n = 4). Twenty patients did not require surgical intervention. Of the initial cohort, 71% of patients required surgery, 9% progressed to TBAD, and 19% had regression or stability of TBIMH with OMT alone. CONCLUSIONS: The most common etiology of TBIMH is an intimal defect. Progression to TBAD and intramural hematoma regression without an intimal defect occurs in a small percentage of patients. An aggressive strategy with endovascular therapy and close surveillance for TBIMH results in excellent short-term and long-term outcomes.

Intent to Vaccinate SARS-CoV-2 Infected Children in US Households: A Survey.

A paucity of data exists evaluating a guardian's intent to vaccinate their child against COVID-19 in the United States. We administered 102 first (April-November 2020) and 45 second (December-January 2020-2021) surveys to guardians of children (<18 years) who had a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and assessed their intent to give a COVID-19 vaccine to their child, when one becomes available. The first and second surveys of the same cohort of guardians were conducted before and following the press releases detailing the adult Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Phase 3 results. Both surveys included an intent-to-vaccinate question using the subjective language of "if a safe and effective vaccine" became available, and a second question was added to second surveys using the objective language of "would prevent 19 of 20 people from getting disease". When using subjective language, 24 of 45 (53%) guardians endorsed vaccine administration for their children in the first survey, which decreased to 21 (46%) in the second survey. When adding objective language, acceptance of vaccination increased to 31 (69%, p = 0.03). Common reasons for declining vaccination were concerns about adverse effects and/or vaccine safety. Providing additional facts on vaccine efficacy increased vaccine acceptance. Evidence-based strategies are needed to increase pediatric COVID-19 vaccine uptake.