A single-center experience of type B aortic intramural hematoma.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The outcomes of the best medical treatment (BMT) and intervention treatment (INT) in a single-center experience were reported in type B intramural hematoma (IMH). METHODS: From February 2015 to February 2021, a total of 195 consecutive patients with type B IMH were enrolled in the study. The primary end point was mortality, and the secondary end points included clinical and imaging outcomes. The clinical outcomes were aortic-related death, retrograde type A aortic dissection, stent graft-induced new entry tear, endoleak, and reintervention. The imaging outcome was evaluated through the latest follow-up computed tomography angiography, which included aortic rupture, aortic dissection, aortic aneurysm, rapid growth of aortic diameter, newly developed or enlarged penetrating aortic ulcer or ulcer-like projection (ULP) and increased aortic wall thickness. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess the association between different treatments. RESULTS: Among the enrolled patients, 115 received BMT, and 80 received INT. There was no significant difference in early (1.7% vs 2.5%; P = 1.00) and midterm all-cause death (8.3% vs 5.2%; P = .42) between the BMT and INT groups. However, patients who underwent INT were at risk of procedure-related complications such as stent graft-induced new entry tear and endoleaks. The INT group was associated with a profound decrease in the risk of ULP, including newly developed ULP (4.3% vs 26.9%; P < .05), ULP enlargement (6.4% vs 31.3%; P < .05), and a lower proportion of high-risk ULP (10.9% vs 45.6%; P < .05). Although there was no significant difference in the incidence of IMH regression between the two groups, the maximum diameter of the descending aorta in patients receiving INT was larger compared with those treated with BMT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our limited experience, patients with type B IMH treated with BMT or INT shared similar midterm clinical outcome. Patients who underwent INT may have a decreased risk of ULPs, but a higher risk of procedure-related events and patients on BMT should be closely monitored for ULP progression.