Aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition caused by a tear in the intimal layer of the aorta or bleeding within the aortic wall, resulting in the separation (dissection) of the layers of the aortic wall. Aortic dissection is most common in those 65-75 years of age, with an incidence of 35 cases per 100,000 people per year in this population. Other risk factors include hypertension, dyslipidaemia and genetic disorders that involve the connective tissue, such as Marfan syndrome. Swift diagnostic confirmation and adequate treatment are crucial in managing affected patients. Contemporary management is multidisciplinary and includes serial non-invasive imaging, biomarker testing and genetic risk profiling for aortopathy. The choice of approach for repairing or replacing the damaged region of the aorta depends on the severity and the location of the dissection and the risks of complication from surgery. Open surgical repair is most commonly used for dissections involving the ascending aorta and the aortic arch, whereas minimally invasive endovascular intervention is appropriate for descending aorta dissections that are complicated by rupture, malperfusion, ongoing pain, hypotension or imaging features of high risk. Recent advances in the understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of aortic dissection have led to more patients being considered at substantial risk of complications and, therefore, in need of endovascular intervention rather than only medical or surgical intervention.

SummaryBackgroundStents are an alternative treatment to carotid endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis, but previous trials have not established equivalent safety and efficacy. We compared the safety of carotid artery stenting with that of carotid endarterectomy.MethodsThe International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) is a multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with blinded adjudication of outcomes. Patients with recently symptomatic carotid artery stenosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive carotid artery stenting or carotid endarterectomy. Randomisation was by telephone call or fax to a central computerised service and was stratified by centre with minimisation for sex, age, contralateral occlusion, and side of the randomised artery. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up by independent clinicians not directly involved in delivering the randomised treatment. The primary outcome measure of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been analysed yet. The main outcome measure for the interim safety analysis was the 120-day rate of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470.FindingsThe trial enrolled 1713 patients (stenting group, n=855; endarterectomy group, n=858). Two patients in the stenting group and one in the endarterectomy group withdrew immediately after randomisation, and were not included in the ITT analysis. Between randomisation and 120 days, there were 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4·0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared with 27 (3·2%) events in the endarterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·28, 95% CI 0·77–2·11). The incidence of stroke, death, or procedural myocardial infarction was 8·5% in the stenting group compared with 5·2% in the endarterectomy group (72 vs 44 events; HR 1·69, 1·16–2·45, p=0·006). Risks of any stroke (65 vs 35 events; HR 1·92, 1·27–2·89) and all-cause death (19 vs seven events; HR 2·76, 1·16–6·56) were higher in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group. Three procedural myocardial infarctions were recorded in the stenting group, all of which were fatal, compared with four, all non-fatal, in the endarterectomy group. There was one event of cranial nerve palsy in the stenting group compared with 45 in the endarterectomy group. There were also fewer haematomas of any severity in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (31 vs 50 events; p=0·0197).InterpretationCompletion of long-term follow-up is needed to establish the efficacy of carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy. In the meantime, carotid endarterectomy should remain the treatment of choice for patients suitable for surgery.FundingMedical Research Council, the Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Aortic dissection is the most common acute catastrophic event affecting the thoracic aorta. The majority of patients presenting with an uncomplicated type B dissection are treated medically, but 25% of these patients develop subsequent aneurysmal dilatation of the thoracic aorta. This study aimed at gaining more detailed knowledge of the flow phenomena associated with this condition. Morphological features and flow patterns in a dissected aortic segment of a presurgery type B dissection patient were analyzed based on computed tomography images acquired from the patient. Computational simulations of blood flow in the patient-specific model were performed by employing a correlation-based transitional version of Menter's hybrid k-epsilon/k-omega shear stress transport turbulence model implemented in ANSYS CFX 11. Our results show that the dissected aorta is dominated by locally highly disturbed, and possibly turbulent, flow with strong recirculation. A significant proportion (about 80%) of the aortic flow enters the false lumen, which may further increase the dilatation of the aorta. High values of wall shear stress have been found around the tear on the true lumen wall, perhaps increasing the likelihood of expanding the tear. Turbulence intensity in the tear region reaches a maximum of 70% at midsystolic deceleration phase. Incorporating the non-Newtonian behavior of blood into the same transitional flow model has yielded a slightly lower peak wall shear stress and higher maximum turbulence intensity without causing discernible changes to the distribution patterns. Comparisons between the laminar and turbulent flow simulations show a qualitatively similar distribution of wall shear stress but a significantly higher magnitude with the transitional turbulence model.