OBJECTIVE: We investigated the outcomes of endovascular repair for penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with and without intramural hematoma (IMH). METHODS: Patients with PAUs who had undergone thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) at our center were enrolled. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, and anatomic characteristics were collected and analyzed to investigate the TEVAR/EVAR indications, perioperative complications, and mortality. RESULTS: We identified 138 patients with PAU. Of the 138 patients, 58 (42.0%) had also had IMH. Compared with the patients without IMH, the patients with IMH had had significantly greater emergency admission rates (P < .01), a larger aortic diameter (P = .03), and a greater incidence of stent-induced new entry development (P = .02). No significant differences were found in mortality or freedom from reintervention between patients with PAUs with and without IMH during follow-up. However, the cumulative survival rates calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis for patients who had undergone TEVAR/EVAR during their first hospitalization were significantly greater than those who had undergone delayed TEVAR/EVAR during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR/EVAR was safe and effective, with encouraging outcomes for patients with PAUs with or without IMH, and can be used more aggressively for symptomatic patients. The presence of PAUs with IMH did not seem to adversely affect long-term mortality. However, but stent-induced new entry was more likely to develop.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the outcomes of endovascular repair for penetrating aortic ulcers (PAUs) with and without intramural hematoma (IMH). METHODS:Patients with PAUs who had undergone thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR) at our center were enrolled. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, and anatomic characteristics were collected and analyzed to investigate the TEVAR/EVAR indications, perioperative complications, and mortality. RESULTS: We identified 138 patients with PAU. Of the 138 patients, 58 (42.0%) had also had IMH. Compared with the patients without IMH, the patients with IMH had had significantly greater emergency admission rates (P < .01), a larger aortic diameter (P = .03), and a greater incidence of stent-induced new entry development (P = .02). No significant differences were found in mortality or freedom from reintervention between patients with PAUs with and without IMH during follow-up. However, the cumulative survival rates calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis for patients who had undergone TEVAR/EVAR during their first hospitalization were significantly greater than those who had undergone delayed TEVAR/EVAR during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR/EVAR was safe and effective, with encouraging outcomes for patients with PAUs with or without IMH, and can be used more aggressively for symptomatic patients. The presence of PAUs with IMH did not seem to adversely affect long-term mortality. However, but stent-induced new entry was more likely to develop.