Population-Based Assessment of Aortic-Related Outcomes in Aortic Dissection, Intramural Hematoma, and Penetrating Aortic Ulcer

Salome Weiss, Indrani Sen, Ying Huang, W. Scott Harmsen, Thomas C. Bower, Gustavo S. Oderich, Philip P. Goodney, Randall R. DeMartino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: The aim of the study was to analyze aortic-related outcomes after diagnosis of aortic dissection (AD), intramural hematoma (IMH), and penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) from a population-based approach. Methods: Retrospective review of an incident cohort of AD, IMH, and PAU patients in Olmsted County, Minnesota from 1995 to 2015. Primary end point was aortic death. Secondary end points were subsequent aortic events (aortic intervention, new dissection, or rupture not present at presentation) and first-time diagnosis of an aortic aneurysm. Outcomes were compared with randomly selected population referents matched for age and sex in a 3:1 ratio using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for comorbidities. Results: Among 133 patients (77 AD, 21 IMH, and 35 PAU), 57% were males, and mean age was 71.8 years (standard deviation, 14). Median follow-up was 10 years. Of 73 deaths among AD/IMH/PAU patients, 23 (32%) were aortic-related. Estimated freedom from aortic death was 84%, 80%, and 77% at 5, 10, and 15 years. There were no aortic deaths among population referents (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for aortic death in AD/IMH/PAU, 184.7; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 10.3–3,299.2; P < 0.001). Fifty (38%) AD/IMH/PAU patients had a subsequent aortic event (aortic intervention, new dissection, or rupture), whereas there were 8 (2%) aortic events among population referents (all elective aneurysm repairs; adjusted HR for any aortic event and aortic intervention in AD/IMH/PAU patients, 33.3; 95% CI, 15.3–72.0; P < 0.001 and 31.5; 95% CI, 14.5–68.4; P < 0.001, respectively). After excluding aortic events/interventions ≤14 days of diagnosis, AD/IMH/PAU patients remained at increased risk of any aortic event (adjusted HR, 10.8; 95% CI, 3.9–29.8; P < 0.001) and aortic intervention (adjusted HR, 9.6; 95% CI, 3.4–26.8; P < 0.001). Among those subjects with available follow-up imaging, the risk of first-time diagnosis of aortic aneurysm was significantly increased for AD/IMH/PAU patients when compared with population referents (adjusted HR, 10.9; 95% CI, 5.4–21.7; P < 0.001 and 8.3; 95% CI, 4.1–16.7; P < 0.001 for thoracic and abdominal aneurysms, respectively) and remained increased when excluding aneurysms that formed within 14 days of AD/IMH/PAU (adjusted HR, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.8–21.1; P = 0.004 and 2.8; 95% CI, 1.0–7.6; P = 0.040 for thoracic and abdominal aneurysms, respectively). Conclusions: AD/IMH/PAU patients have a substantial risk of aortic death, any aortic event, aortic intervention, and first-time diagnosis of aortic aneurysm that persists even when the acute phase (≤14 days after diagnosis) is uncomplicated. Advances in postdiagnosis treatment are necessary to improve the prognosis in these patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)62-73
Number of pages12
JournalAnnals of Vascular Surgery
StatePublished - Nov 2020

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Population-Based Assessment of Aortic-Related Outcomes in Aortic Dissection, Intramural Hematoma, and Penetrating Aortic Ulcer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this