Paruchuri Vijayapraveena, Salhab Khaled F, Kuzmik Gregory, Gubernikoff George, Fang Hai, Rizzo John A, Ziganshin Bulat A, Elefteriades John A
Department of Cardiology, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, N.Y., USA.
Cardiology. 2015;131(4):265-72. doi: 10.1159/000381281. Epub 2015 May 14.
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).
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).
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.
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.
当前指南推荐将升主动脉直径5 - 5.5厘米作为手术阈值。然而,一项来自国际急性主动脉夹层登记处的研究表明,近60%的夹层发生在直径小于5.5厘米处(“主动脉大小悖论”),这引发了关于是否应降低大小阈值的争论。然而,该显示小尺寸夹层的研究并不了解高危人群情况。在此,我们旨在通过分析夹层发生数量(分子)以及每个主动脉大小的高危人群数量(分母)来计算直径小于5.5厘米时主动脉夹层的相对风险。
利用一个公开可用的包含3573名多民族受试者(46%为男性,平均年龄60.7岁)的一般人群数据库,我们绘制了升主动脉大小的分布曲线(通过磁共振成像)。主动脉夹层的相对风险通过将每个大小处夹层发生的比例(分子)除以一般人群中相同大小主动脉的比例(分母)来计算。
参考人群的升主动脉平均直径为3.2厘米(±0.4厘米)。女性最大直径为4.9厘米,男性为5.0厘米。主动脉直径小于3.5厘米的受试者比例为79.2%,3.5 - 3.9厘米的受试者比例为18.0%,4.0 - 4.4厘米的受试者比例为2.6%,直径大于等于4.5厘米的受试者比例为0.22%。发现这些类别中夹层的相对风险分别为0.055、2.5、4.9和346.8。主动脉直径大于等于4.5厘米的患者发生主动脉夹层的可能性是主动脉直径小于3.5厘米患者的6305倍。
正常主动脉的大小看似较小,最常见的小于3.5厘米。主动脉大小悖论是小尺寸范围内大量患者的一个副产品。本研究充分支持当前关于5 - 5.5厘米时手术干预的建议。