ABSTRACT: The general characteristics, outcomes and risk factors of the patients with aortic dissection (AD) were evaluated in a single medical center. From January 2002 to December 2008, 284 patients with AD were treated and followed-up at our institution, including 105 cases of type A AD and 179 cases of type B AD. The patients in each type were divided into three groups according to management: medical treatment group (A or B), open surgery group (A or B), and stent-graft group (A or B). The characteristics and follow-up outcomes were compared between the groups or subgroups. The results showed that there was significant difference in the prognosis for type A AD between medical treatment group and open surgery group, but there was no significant difference in the prognosis for type B AD between medical treatment group and stent-graft group. Independent risk factors of follow-up mortality for patients with type A AD included a history of atherosclerosis (HR, 3.807; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.489 to 7.611; P=0.003), in-hospital hypotension/shock (HR, 4.687; 95% CI, 1.846 to 11.900; P=0.001), in-hospital myocardial ischemia or infarction (HR, 3.734; 95% CI, 1.613 to 8.643; P=0.002), pleural effusion (HR, 2.210; 95% CI, 1.080 to 4.521; P=0.030), branch vessel involvement (HR, 2.747; 95% CI, 1.202 to 6.278; P=0.016) and surgical treatment (HR, 0.177; 95% CI, 0.063 to 0.502; P=0.001). And there were insignificant independent predictors for mortality of the patients with type B AD. It was concluded that there were significant differences in characteristics and one year mortality between type A AD and type B AD, but after one year, there was no significant difference in the mortality and complications of them. There were several discordant risk factors of AD, such as female gender, age, thrombus, abrupt onset of pain that were considered as the risk factors in some papers. And there was no definite risk factor of mortality in this study in the patients with type B AD.
Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology 02/2011; 31(1):107-13. · 0.38 Impact Factor