(1) Background: The pathophysiologic basis of an acute type A aortic dissection (TAAD) is largely unknown. In an effort to evaluate vessel wall defects, we systematically studied aortic specimens in TAAD patients. (2) Methods: Ascending aortic wall specimens (n = 58, mean age 63 years) with TAAD were collected. Autopsy tissues (n = 17, mean age 63 years) served as controls. All sections were studied histopathologically. (3) Results: Pathomorphology in TAAD showed predominantly moderate elastic fiber fragmentation/loss, elastic fiber thinning, elastic fiber degeneration, mucoid extracellular matrix accumulation, smooth muscle cell nuclei loss, and overall medial degeneration. The control group showed significantly fewer signs of those histopathological features (none-mild, p = 0.00). It was concluded that the dissection plane consistently coincides with the vasa vasorum network, and that TAAD associates with a significantly thinner intimal layer p = 0.005). (4) Conclusions: On the basis of the systematic evaluation and the consistent presence of diffuse, pre-existing medial defects, we hypothesize that TAAD relates to a developmental defect of the ascending aorta and is caused by a triple-hit mechanism that involves (I) an intimal tear; and (II) a diseased media, which allows (III) propagation of the tear towards the plane of the vasa vasorum where the dissection further progresses.
Background The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) has led to an increased emphasis on reducing the invasiveness of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance achieved with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) as compared with conventional AVR. Methods Patients who underwent surgical AVR with the Avalus bioprosthesis, as part of a prospective multicenter non-randomized trial, were included in this analysis. Surgical approach was left to the discretion of the surgeons. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between MI-AVR and conventional AVR groups in the entire cohort (n = 1077) and in an isolated AVR subcohort (n = 528). Propensity score adjustment was performed to estimate the effect of MI-AVR on adverse events. Results Patients treated with MI-AVR were younger, had lower STS scores, and underwent concomitant procedures less often. Valve size implanted was comparable between the groups. MI-AVR was associated with longer procedural times in the isolated AVR subcohort. Postprocedural hemodynamic performance was comparable. There were no significant differences between MI-AVR and conventional AVR in early and 3-year all-cause mortality, thromboembolism, reintervention, or a composite of those endpoints within either the entire cohort or the isolated AVR subcohort. After propensity score adjustment, there remained no association between MI-AVR and the composite endpoint (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.47–1.55, p = 0.61). Conclusions Three-year outcomes after MI-AVR with the Avalus bioprosthetic valve were comparable to conventional AVR. These results provide important insights into the overall ability to reduce the invasiveness of AVR without compromising outcomes.
Background/Introduction Current international guidelines on treatment of valvular heart disease contain recommendations for aortic valve replacement based exclusively on abnormal echocardiographic parameters in asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis (AS). To prevent misclassification and subsequent mistreatment of patients, these recommendations require accurate and unbiased measurements of hemodynamic parameters. Purpose To illustrate consideration and impact of measurement error in echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis in both the research and clinical setting. Methods First, a systematic review was performed to investigate the recognition of and correction for measurement error in clinical studies on the prognostic value of peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax), mean pressure gradient (MPG), and effective orifice area (EOA). Second, all potential erroneous sources in the calculation of those primary parameters were listed stratified to random or systematic measurement error, and subsequently their magnitude was quantified. Third, the impact of various types of measurement error on current thresholds for intervention was graphically illustrated in different clinical scenarios. Results The presence of measurement error was acknowledged in 44% of the 36 included studies, while none utilized methods to correct for it. Interobserver variability ranged between 0.9–8.3% for Vmax and MPG but was substantially higher for EOA (range 7.7–12.7%) implying lower reliability (Figure 1). Furthermore, the invalid assumption of a circular left ventricular outflow tract area resulted in a median underestimation in EOA of 22.5% compared to 3D-transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE), computed tomography (CT), and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) planimetry. Figure 2 illustrates the impact of this discrepancy on the classification of AS using one-sided t-tests to determine the areas under the curve; the proportion of patients with non-severe AS in a hypothetical cohort (based on values from the PARTNER 3 trial [1[) increased by 42%. Conclusion(s) Measurement error is underrecognized in studies of echocardiographic assessment of aortic stenosis. This review demonstrates that random and systematic measurement errors affect echocardiographic assessment, leading to potential misdiagnosis and subsequent mistreatment. Clinicians and scientists should be aware of the implications of measurement errors to enhance rightful clinical decision-making and assure research validity. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.