In search of blood tests for thoracic aortic diseases

A number of new diagnostic screening tools have been developed for the assessment of acute and chronic diseases of the thoracic aorta. Although standardized blood-based tests capable of detecting individuals at risk for aortic aneurysm and dissection disease are not yet available, our current knowledge is expanding at a rapid rate and the future is very promising. In this review, an update of the contemporary knowledge on blood tests for detecting thoracic aortic diseases in both preclinical and clinical settings is provided, offering the potential to predict adverse aortic events, such as enlargement, rupture, and dissection. \ua9 2010 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Biomarkers in TAA—The Holy Grail

Thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is a silent disease, often discovered at a time point that dramatic complications, as rupture and dissection, occur. For the detection of asymptomatic TAA and prevention of such complications, it is essential to have an adequate screening tool. Until now, routine laboratory blood tests have played only a minor role in the screening, diagnosis, tracking and prediction of the natural history of TAAs. However, the knowledge about biomarkers is rapidly expanding in the cardiovascular field, and there are several potential biomarkers that might be implemented into TAA clinical practice in the near future. The most important and promising markers for TAA will be discussed in this overview

Importance of false lumen thrombosis in type B aortic dissection

Background: Partial thrombosis of the false lumen has been reported as a significant predictor of mortality during follow-up in patients with acute type B aortic dissection. The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation of false lumen thrombosis and aortic expansion during follow-up in patients with acute type B aortic dissection. Methods: All medically treated patients with acute type B aortic dissection observed in 4 cardiovascular referral centers between 1998 and 2011, with admission and follow-up computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans, were included. Aortic diameters of the dissected aortas were measured at 4 levels on the baseline and follow-up scans, and annual growth rates were calculated. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to investigate the effect of false lumen thrombosis on aortic growth rate. Results: A total of 84 patients were included, of whom 40 (47.6%) had a partially thrombosed false lumen, 7 (8.3%) had a completely thrombosed false lumen, and 37 (44.0%) had a patent false lumen. A total of 273 of the 336 (81.3%) evaluated aortic levels were dissected segments. Overall, the mean aortic diameter increased significantly at all evaluated levels (P < .001). Univariate analysis showed that annual aortic growth rates were significantly higher in those segments having a false lumen with partial thrombosis (mean, 4.25 \ub1 10.2) when compared with the patent group (mean, 2.10 \ub1 5.56; P = .035). In multivariate analysis, partial lumen thrombosis was an independent predictor of higher aortic growth (adjusted mean difference, 2.05 mm/year; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-4.01; P = .040). Conclusions: In patients with acute type B aortic dissection, aortic segments with a partially thrombosed false lumen have a significantly higher annual aortic growth rate when compared with those presenting with patent or complete thrombosis of the false lumen. Therefore, patients with partial thrombosis require more intensive follow-up and may benefit from prophylactic intervention

Erratum: Aortic Size Distribution in the General Population: Explaining the Size Paradox in Aortic Dissection

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Current guidelines recommend a diameter of 5-5.5 cm as the threshold for surgery on the ascending aorta. However, a study from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection showed that nearly 60% occurred at <5.5 cm (the ‘aortic size paradox') - leading to a debate whether the size threshold should be lowered. However, the study showing dissection at small size had no knowledge of the population at risk. Herein, we aim to calculate the relative risk of aortic dissection at sizes <5.5 cm by analyzing both the number of occurring dissections (numerator) and the population at risk at each aortic size (denominator). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Using a publicly available database of 3,573 multiethnic subjects (46% male, mean age 60.7 years) from the general population, we plotted a distribution curve of ascending aortic size (by magnetic resonance imaging). The relative risk of aortic dissection was calculated by dividing the proportion of dissections occurring at each size (numerator) by the proportion of aortas of that same size in the general population (denominator). <b><i>Results:</i></b> The mean ascending aortic diameter of the reference population was 3.2 cm (±0.4 cm). The largest diameter was 4.9 cm in women and 5.0 cm in men. The proportion of subjects with an aorta <3.5 cm was 79.2%, that of subjects with 3.5-3.9 cm was 18.0%, that of subjects with 4.0-4.4 cm was 2.6%, and that of subjects with ≥4.5 cm was 0.22%. The relative risk of dissection in those categories was found to be 0.055, 2.5, 4.9, and 346.8, respectively. Patients with an aorta ≥4.5 cm were 6,305 times more likely to suffer aortic dissection than those with an aorta <3.5 cm. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The normal aorta is deceptively small, most commonly <3.5 cm. The aortic size paradox is a byproduct of the very large number of patients in small size ranges. This study fully supports current recommendations for surgical intervention at 5-5.5 cm