Elsevier

Clinical Radiology

Volume 63, Issue 2, February 2008, Pages 201-206
Clinical Radiology

Newly developed ulcer-like projection (ULP) in aortic intramural haematoma on follow-up CT: is it different from the ULP seen on the initial CT?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.07.020Get rights and content

Aim

To show whether the clinical and radiological features of newly developed ulcer-like projections (nULPs) in an aortic intramural haematoma (IMH) on follow-up computed tomography (CT) images, are different from those of the initial ULPs (iULPs) on the initial CT images.

Materials and methods

A review of the radiological database revealed 98 patients with IMH with at least two follow-up CT examinations with a follow-up period of more than 1 month. The patients were divided into four groups: patients without iULPs or nULPs throughout the follow-up periods (group A); patients with iULPs on the initial CT images (group B); patients with nULPs on follow-up CT images but without iULPs on the initial CT images (group C); and patients with both iULPs and nULPs (group D). The type of IMH, aortic diameter, thickness of the haematoma, and complications were analysed. The clinical and CT findings and complications in the four groups were compared.

Results

Forty-two patients had no iULPs nor nULPs (group A); 27 patients had 45 iULPs on the initial CT images (group B); 16 patients had 17 nULPs on follow-up CT images without any ULP on the initial CT images (group C); and 21 nULPs developed in 13 patients with iULPs (group D). There was no significant difference in the demographic or initial CT findings in the four groups. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of complications between groups B (59.3%), group C (62.5%), and group D (69.2%; p = 0.830), but there was a significant difference in the incidence of complications between the patients without any ULPs (21.5% in group A) and those with ULPs (62.5% in groups B, C, and D).

Conclusion

There were no significant differences in the CT findings or complications between the patients with iULPs and nULPs. Regardless of the developing time of the ULPs, the incidence of complications of IMH in patients with ULPs was higher than that in those without ULPs. Careful and regular follow-up CT examinations are needed for patients with ULPs.

Introduction

Ulcer-like projections (ULPs) were, not was first described in 1965 as a “defect in the intima leading to a clotted second channel” in aortic dissection (thrombosed type).1 ULP has been considered to represent the site of an intimal tear or the site of occlusion or detachment of the orifice of aortic branches or penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers (PAUs),1, 2, 3 but the definition still remains unclear.

The role of ULPs is still unclear as a prognostic factor in IMH. The presence of ULP was considered as the important factor for predicting the prognosis of intramural haematoma (IMH). In previous studies, authors have suggested that IMH with ULPs or PAUs was significantly associated with a progressive disease course.4, 5 Conversely, other authors have suggested that most ULPs are asymptomatic and do not expand.6 New ULPs (nULPs) can arise during the follow-up period in patients with IMH without an ULP seen on the initial computed tomography (CT) examination. It is suggested that many nULPs on follow-up CT examinations progress to complications, such as aneurysm, aortic dissection, or aortic rupture.5, 7 However, to the authors' knowledge, no studies have been performed to compare ULPs on initial CT (iULPs) and nULPs, in terms of incidence, complications, and prognosis.

The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether the clinical and CT features of nULPs on follow-up CT in patients with aortic IMH are different from those of the iULPs, and to ascertain whether the complication rate differs between IMH without ULPs and IMH with ULPs.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Between January 1998 and January 2005, 2755 consecutive patients clinically suspected of having acute aortic dissection underwent contrast-enhanced CT in a tertiary referral hospital with 2200 beds. A retrospective analysis of the imaging reports was performed to detect the presence of IMH or “thrombosed aortic dissection” by searching the radiology information systems database for patients with clinically suspected acute aortic dissection and in whom contrast-enhanced CT examinations had been

Results

There were 42 patients without iULPs or nULPs throughout follow-up periods (group A); 27 patients with 45 iULPs at the initial CT examination (group B), 16 patients with 17 nULPs on follow-up CT without iULPs on the initial CT images (group C); and 21 nULPs developed in 13 patients with iULPs (group D). Fifty-eight iULPs were identified in 40 patients and 38 nULPs developed in 29 patients. Seventy-nine percent of the nULPs (30 of 38) developed within 1 month of the initial CT examination. The

Discussion

The main finding of this study was that the CT features and complication rates of patients with nULP on follow-up CT in patients with aortic IMH do not differ from those with ULP found on the initial CT images. However, patients with ULPs had more complications than patients without ULPs.

Aortic IMH has been recognized as a variant of aortic dissection.2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 IMH was first described in 1920 as dissection without intimal tear. With the development of non-invasive imaging techniques,

References (22)

  • E. Sueyoshi et al.

    Fate of intramural hematoma of the aorta: CT evaluation

    J Comput Assist Tomogr

    (1997)
  • Cited by (30)

    • Prediction of adverse events in patients with initially medically treated type A intramural hematoma

      2020, International Journal of Cardiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      IMH was initially described as aortic dissection without an intimal tear [23,24], however, intimal defects were detected in 70% with CT and 70–80% of the surgically treated IMH [13,24,25], and some tiny intimal defects might not be well identified by CT. ULP, also described as localized intimal defect, was detected by imaging techniques in 20% to 50% of IMH in previous studies [12,26,27], and was detected in 46.5% patients by CT in our initially medically treated type A IMH cohort. This raised a question to the traditional theory with vasa vasorum bleeding, conventional definition of IMH might be changed [24].

    • Clinical Implications of Focal Intimal Disruption in Patients With Type B Intramural Hematoma

      2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Remarkably, our pathology studies showed the presence of FID (>3 mm) with preservation of the adventitia in 3 patients in chronic phase on necropsy studies, and confirmed complete aortic rupture in 4 patients during hospitalization: 3 in necropsy studies and 1 who underwent open surgery. Management recommendations for intimal disruption in type B IMH have been highly controversial given the different mechanisms and clinical outcome of these lesions (3,9–14,25). Jang et al. (11) reported that 40% of patients presented intimal disruptions on the initial imaging study.

    • Prognostic factors in patients with uncomplicated acute type B aortic dissection

      2014, Annals of Thoracic Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      In our study, any blood-filled pouch projecting into the thrombosed false lumen was defined as a ULP, which were detected by CT in 62.3% of patients with a completely thrombosed false lumen. The ULP is considered to represent the site of an entry tear [23]. Based on their experience with surgical treatment for type A intramural hematoma, Park and colleagues [24] reported that a large proportion of type A intramural hematomas had entry tears.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text