| pubmed-article:11324810 | pubmed:abstractText | The clinical manifestations and natural history of acute aortic intramural hemorrhage are not well characterized. Therefore, we have evaluated the differences in the clinical features and prognosis between acute intramural hemorrhage and acute classic aortic dissection. One hundred two consecutive patients with acute aortic syndrome were diagnosed between November 1994 and May 1999. The clinical features, treatment modalities and survival of these patients were analyzed. Thirty one of the 102 patients (30%) had intramural hemorrhage and 71 (70%) had aortic dissection. Patients with intramural hemorrhage were older than those with aortic dissection (mean ages 67 and 55 years, respectively) (p < 0.001), and intramural hemorrhage showed a lower proportion of type A than did aortic dissection (32% and 58%, respectively) (p = 0.018). The incidence of severe complications was significantly lower in patients with intramural hemorrhage than in those with aortic dissection (19% and 27%, respectively) (p < 0.001). Mean follow-up duration was 23.1+/-16.0 months. The overall death rate for patients with intramural hemorrhage (2 / 31; 6%) tended to be lower than those with aortic dissection (14 / 71; 20%) (p = 0.104). The Stanford classification and treatment modalities were not correlated with death. Late follow-up imaging studies in intramural hemorrhage showed partial to complete resolution of intramural hematoma (9 / 15; 60%). In this study, intramural hemorrhage was fairly common, more frequent among older patients, had a lower proportion of type A, and showed a lower incidence of severe complications and a more favorable prognosis in terms of mortality, than aortic dissection. | lld:pubmed |
