Aortic Catastrophes: Dissection, Intramural Hematoma, and Penetrating Ulcer—A Comprehensive Review

 

Aortic Catastrophes: Dissection, Intramural Hematoma, and Penetrating Ulcer—A Comprehensive Review for Critical Care Practitioners

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

---

Abstract

Acute aortic syndromes (AAS) represent true life-threatening emergencies requiring rapid diagnosis, risk stratification, and decisive intervention. Despite advances in imaging and endovascular techniques, mortality from aortic dissection remains substantial at 10-15% in-hospital. This review synthesizes contemporary evidence on aortic dissection, intramural hematoma (IMH), and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU), with emphasis on clinical recognition, pathophysiologic management, and selective intervention. We provide critical care practitioners with practical algorithms, pearls, and practical hacks for managing these complex entities in the intensive care setting.

Keywords: aortic dissection, intramural hematoma, penetrating ulcer, TEVAR, critical care management

---

Introduction

The acute aortic syndrome encompasses a spectrum of life-threatening conditions affecting the thoracic aorta: classical aortic dissection, intramural hematoma, and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer. These entities share common risk factors (hypertension, atherosclerosis, connective tissue disorders, iatrogenic injury) yet differ fundamentally in pathology, presentation, and management. The mortality of untreated acute dissection approaches 1-2% per hour in the first 48 hours, making rapid recognition and appropriate triage paramount in critical care settings. This review focuses on practical management strategies informed by major guidelines including the 2016 AHA/ACC guidelines and 2020 ESC guidelines on aortic disease.

---

The Stanford Classification: The Simplicity of Type A (Surgical) vs. Type B (Medical)

Historical Context and Practical Utility

The Stanford classification, introduced by Daily and colleagues in 1970, remains the most clinically relevant system for acute aortic dissection because it directly guides therapy rather than merely describing anatomy. This binary classification has stood the test of time for a critical reason: it separates surgical emergencies from medically manageable conditions.

Type A Dissection involves the ascending aorta—any dissection with proximal extension into the ascending aorta requires urgent surgical evaluation. The criterion is elegantly simple: if the ascending aorta is involved, call cardiothoracic surgery immediately. Type A accounts for approximately 60-70% of acute dissections and carries the highest mortality (~30% in-hospital even with surgery, >90% without intervention).

Type B Dissection is limited to the descending thoracic aorta distal to the left subclavian artery origin. This distinction is not merely anatomic semantics—it fundamentally changes management from emergent surgery to aggressive medical therapy with selective endovascular intervention.

Pearl: The Ascending Aorta Rule

Critical Pearl #1: Any hint of ascending aorta involvement mandates cardiac surgery consultation. Do not wait for cardiothoracic surgery to be "available"—activate emergent protocols immediately. Even patients in extremis with aortic rupture have salvageable outcomes with rapid surgical intervention.

Clinical Relevance: Why This Matters in Critical Care

Type A dissections threaten catastrophic complications including acute aortic regurgitation (AR), cardiac tamponade, myocardial infarction (particularly right coronary ostial involvement), and aortic rupture. Type B dissections, while less immediately lethal, carry long-term risks including chronic dissection with progressive aortic enlargement and rupture.

Hack: Rapid Stanford Classification Algorithm

In the hemodynamically unstable patient with suspected dissection:

1. Ask the imaging team immediately: "Does the ascending aorta enhance with contrast?" (CTA gold standard)
2. If yes or indeterminate: Type A—activate emergent surgery
3. If no, with descending aorta involvement: Type B—optimize blood pressure, activate ICU protocols

Oyster: The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) data reveal that ~10% of dissections involve the ascending aorta without a classical history (see "Atypical Presentations" below). Maintain high suspicion in atypical presentations.

---

The "Atypical" Presentation: Painless Dissection, Neurologic Deficits, Abdominal Pain

The Dissection Masquerade

One of the most dangerous aspects of acute aortic dissection is its protean presentation. The classic teaching—sudden, severe "tearing" chest pain radiating to the back—captures perhaps 70-80% of cases. The remaining 20-30% present with atypical or frankly misleading symptoms, accounting for missed diagnoses and delayed treatment.

Painless Dissection

Prevalence and Characteristics: Approximately 10-15% of acute aortic dissections present without chest pain. Painless dissections are significantly more common in patients with connective tissue disorders (Marfan syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome), chronic aortic disease, and those with neurologic impairment. The mechanism likely relates to lack of sensory integrity and chronic aortic wall remodeling.

Pearl: The Silent Killer Painless dissections frequently present with secondary complications: acute heart failure (aortic regurgitation), stroke (carotid involvement), syncope (rupture with tamponade), or acute limb ischemia. These patients often receive misdiagnoses of acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, or acute heart failure before dissection is considered.

Clinical Example: A 72-year-old with longstanding hypertension presents with dyspnea and new-onset severe aortic regurgitation on echocardiography. No chest pain is mentioned. CTA reveals Type A dissection with acute AR from aortic root involvement. The painless presentation delayed diagnosis by 6 hours.

Hack: Apply the "dissection suspicion score." Increase clinical suspicion for dissection in any of these scenarios:

• New aortic regurgitation without bacterial endocarditis
• Acute heart failure in a hypertensive patient without prior dysfunction
• Syncope + hypertension
• Stroke in atypical distribution
• Known connective tissue disorder with any acute cardiovascular presentation

Neurologic Deficits

Neurologic involvement occurs in 7-30% of acute aortic dissections and indicates severe disease with poor prognosis if untreated.

Mechanisms of Neurologic Injury:

1. Direct carotid/vertebral artery involvement: Dissection extending into carotid or vertebral arteries causing ischemic stroke
2. Spinal artery compromise: Involvement of artery of Adamkiewicz causing acute paraplegia
3. Phrenic nerve injury: Causing diaphragmatic paralysis
4. Hypoperfusion: Secondary to hemodynamic collapse

Presentation Pattern: Stroke (most common) occurs in ~5-10%, spinal cord ischemia in ~2-3% (more common with Type B), and phrenic nerve palsy in ~2-3%.

Pearl: The Stroke-Dissection Connection Any patient with acute stroke and uncontrolled hypertension or chest/back pain should undergo dedicated aortic imaging, not just head CT/MRI. Type A dissections with carotid involvement can present as isolated stroke without mention of chest symptoms.

Oyster: Spinal cord ischemia from dissection typically occurs with Type B dissection at the thoraco-lumbar junction. The Adamkiewicz artery, arising at T9-L2 level (usually left, ~70%) on the posterolateral aortic wall, supplies the lower two-thirds of the spinal cord. Extensive Type B dissections, particularly those extending to involve this level, risk acute paraplegia. This has implications for endovascular management (see TEVAR section).

Abdominal Pain

Abdominal pain occurs in ~10% of acute aortic syndromes and represents one of the most dangerous presentations for diagnostic delay.

Mechanism: Type B dissection extending distally into the abdominal aorta, or dissection compromising visceral vessel ostia (celiac, superior mesenteric, renal arteries).

Clinical Presentation:

• Acute mesenteric ischemia: SMA compromise causing acute abdominal pain, nausea, and potential bowel infarction
• Acute renal infarction: Flank pain, hematuria, elevated LDH with normal transaminases
• Visceral ischemia without dissection extension: Malperfusion from aortic flow reversal into false lumen

Diagnostic Trap: These patients often receive evaluation for acute surgical abdomen, pancreatitis, or acute cholecystitis. The diagnosis of dissection is delayed while unnecessary imaging (ultrasound, HIDA scan) is performed.

Hack: The "Renal Infarction Alert" Any patient presenting with acute flank pain and hematuria—even without back pain—deserves aortic imaging if risk factors are present. Acute renal infarction from dissection is rare but frequently missed. A simple elevated LDH out of proportion to transaminases should raise suspicion.

Pearl: Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Masquerade Type B dissection extending to the abdominal aorta can mimic ruptured AAA on physical examination and initial imaging. Distinction is critical because ruptured AAA requires immediate vascular surgery, while dissection usually requires medical management with selective endovascular intervention. The key differentiator: dissection has a false lumen and intimate flap; simple AAA rupture does not.

Atypical Presentations: A Summary Algorithm for Suspicion

Remember: DISSECT

• Dialyse patients with acute renal failure (dissection causing renal artery involvement)
• Ischemia acute (limb, mesenteric, spinal, cerebral)
• Stroke (especially with hypertension history)
• Syncope (without explanation)
• Excruciating new-onset AR (without endocarditis)
• Cardiac arrest/tamponade (Type A)
• Tachycardia unexplained with hemodynamic instability

---

IMH & PAU: The "Incomplete" Dissections and Their Management Nuances

Introduction: Beyond Classical Dissection

Intramural hematoma (IMH) and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU) represent variations on the theme of acute aortic syndrome. These entities lack a classical dissection flap with false lumen but represent serious pathology requiring individualized risk stratification and management.

Intramural Hematoma: Etiology and Pathophysiology

Definition: Intramural hematoma is bleeding within the aortic media without an associated dissection flap or false lumen communication with the true lumen.

Prevalence: IMH accounts for approximately 5-10% of acute aortic syndromes.

Etiology: IMH likely results from:

1. Rupture of small vasa vasorum in the media with contained bleeding
2. Medial degeneration similar to dissection but insufficient to create complete flap separation
3. Propagation from PAU (see below)

Pathophysiology: The hematoma accumulates within the aortic media, causing circumferential or localized thickening of the aortic wall (typically >5mm, often >10mm). The aortic wall becomes weakened, creating risk for progression to classical dissection, aortic rupture, or rarely, spontaneous resolution.

IMH: Natural History and Prognosis

The natural history of IMH demonstrates three potential trajectories:

1. Progression (30-50%): IMH evolves to classical dissection with false lumen formation, typically within days to weeks. Risk factors include: larger hematoma size (>20mm), Type A location, and presence of symptoms at presentation.

2. Stability/Resolution (30-40%): Some IMH remain stable or gradually resolve over months. These appear to have better long-term prognosis, though long-term imaging surveillance is essential.

3. Rupture (10-20%): IMH can rupture into pericardium (causing tamponade), pleural space, or aortic lumen. Rupture carries high mortality.

Pearl: The Size Matters Principle IMH with circumferential involvement or thickness >20mm carries substantially higher risk of progression to dissection or rupture. This finding should lower the threshold for intervention.

IMH: Management Approach

Type A IMH (Ascending Aorta Involvement)

Type A IMH should be managed similarly to Type A dissection—urgent surgical evaluation is recommended. The reasoning is sound: Type A IMH can progress to Type A dissection or rupture with catastrophic consequences. Additionally, the ascending aorta is amenable to surgical replacement with excellent outcomes.

Recommendation: Cardiac surgery consultation for all Type A IMH. Selected cases (small, localized, stable patients) may be managed medically with strict imaging surveillance (CTA at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, then annually).

Type B IMH (Descending Aorta Involvement)

Type B IMH management is more nuanced and individualized:

Uncomplicated Type B IMH: Aggressive medical management with blood pressure and heart rate control is the initial approach, similar to Type B dissection. Target parameters: SBP 100-120 mmHg, HR 60 bpm, mean arterial pressure 65-75 mmHg.

Complicated Type B IMH (with signs of rupture, contained rupture, progression, aortic expansion >5mm/year): Endovascular intervention (TEVAR) should be considered.

Key Studies Informing IMH Management:

The INSTEAD and INSTEAD-XL trials demonstrated that endovascular therapy (TEVAR) improved outcomes in complicated Type B aortic dissection. Similar principles apply to complicated Type B IMH, though prospective IMH-specific data are limited.

Oyster: The IMH Conundrum Approximately 30% of Type B IMH progress to classical dissection. Predictors of progression include: hematoma thickness >20mm, maximum aortic diameter >50mm, and ongoing hypertension despite medical therapy. Regular imaging (CTA at 1 week, 1-3 months, then annually) is essential for uncomplicated Type B IMH.

Penetrating Atherosclerotic Ulcer: A Distinct Entity

Definition: PAU represents penetration of an atherosclerotic plaque through the internal elastic lamina into the media. The ulcer cavity contains thrombosed blood.

Prevalence: PAU accounts for 2-7% of acute aortic syndromes.

Epidemiology: PAU typically affects elderly patients (age 60-70 years) with longstanding hypertension and significant atherosclerosis. Patients with PAU tend to be older than those with classical dissection.

Pathophysiology: Atherosclerotic plaques, particularly in the descending thoracic or thoraco-abdominal aorta, penetrate through the weakened internal elastic lamina. The resulting ulcer erodes into the medial layer. Unlike dissection, there is no intimal flap or false lumen. However, the ulcer can:

• Expand and enlarge the aortic wall
• Progress to transmural rupture
• Evolve into frank dissection (10-15% of cases)
• Expand into surrounding structures

PAU: Clinical Presentation and Diagnosis

Clinical Presentation: PAU typically presents with acute or subacute chest or back pain, often in elderly hypertensive patients. Hemodynamic instability is less common than with classical dissection.

Diagnostic Imaging: CTA with careful attention to the aortic wall is required. Key findings include:

• Focal outpouching or ulceration of the aortic wall
• Adjacent intramural hematoma in ~60% of cases
• Disruption of the internal elastic lamina on careful review

Pearl: The "Niche" Sign The characteristic appearance is a discrete, localized outpouching of the aortic wall with surrounding edema or hematoma, often described as a "niche" in the aortic wall. This distinguishes it from the broad fenestration typical of classical dissection.

PAU: Natural History and Risk Stratification

PAU natural history is less well-defined than dissection, with limited prospective data. However, reported series suggest:

• Progression/Complication (30-50%): PAU can expand, rupture, or progress to classical dissection
• Stability (40-50%): Many PAU remain stable with medical management
• Mortality: Reported mortality ranges from 5-15% depending on management approach

Risk Factors for Progression:

• Maximum aortic diameter >50mm
• Multiple PAU sites
• Extensive intramural hematoma
• Uncontrolled hypertension despite therapy
• Aortic expansion on follow-up imaging

PAU: Management Approach

Medical Management: Initial management of uncomplicated PAU mirrors Type B dissection: aggressive blood pressure and heart rate control. Target SBP 100-120 mmHg, heart rate 60 bpm.

Indications for Intervention (Endovascular or Surgical):

1. Aortic rupture or contained rupture (hemodynamic instability, expanding hematoma)
2. Signs of malperfusion (visceral, limb, spinal cord ischemia)
3. Rapid aortic expansion (>5mm in 1 month, >10mm in 6 months)
4. Progressive symptoms despite optimal medical therapy
5. Aortic diameter >55-60mm (to prevent rupture risk)

Endovascular Intervention (TEVAR): TEVAR is increasingly used for complicated PAU, though comparative data with medical management alone are limited. The rationale is sound: TEVAR excludes the ulcer site from aortic pressures, allowing healing and preventing progression.

Surgical Intervention: Rarely performed in modern practice. Reserved for: acute rupture with circulatory collapse (if TEVAR unavailable), extensive involvement of multiple visceral vessels requiring reconstruction, or failed endovascular attempts.

IMH and PAU: Key Management Pearls

Pearl #2: The Imaging Surveillance Imperative All uncomplicated Type B IMH and PAU require regular imaging surveillance. Recommend CTA at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after initial presentation, then annually. Any signs of progression mandate intervention consideration.

Pearl #3: The "Incomplete" Dissection Paradox IMH and PAU, despite lacking classical dissection flaps, carry similar risks of rupture and malperfusion. Do not dismiss these diagnoses as benign variants. They demand the same meticulous monitoring and aggressive blood pressure control as classical dissection.

Hack: The Quick Risk Stratification When evaluating Type B IMH or PAU, ask these three questions:

1. Is the patient hemodynamically stable on current management? (Yes = uncomplicated)
2. Is the maximum aortic diameter <50mm? (Yes = lower-risk anatomy)
3. Is the hematoma/ulcer cavity <20mm? (Yes = smaller lesion volume)

If all three answers are "yes," medical management is reasonable with close follow-up. If any answer is "no," lower the threshold for endovascular intervention.

---

The Role of Beta-Blockers: The Cornerstone of Medical Management to Reduce dP/dt

The Hemodynamic Rationale

The cornerstone of medical management for acute aortic dissection (Types A and B), IMH, and PAU is control of the rate of change of aortic pressure with respect to time—quantified as dP/dt. The pathophysiologic basis is elegant and proven: aortic dissection initiates at the site of highest shear stress on the aortic wall, which occurs at the junction of the proximal and descending thoracic aorta. The force of ventricular contraction, transmitted to the aorta, correlates directly with dP/dt. Reducing dP/dt decreases stress on the aortic wall, potentially halting dissection propagation and reducing rupture risk.

Beta-Blockers: First-Line Agents

First-line Recommendation: Beta-blockers should be initiated immediately upon diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome, before blood pressure reduction alone. The goal is to achieve a heart rate of 50-60 bpm with a target systolic blood pressure of 100-120 mmHg.

Why Beta-Blockers First? This order is counterintuitive to trainees accustomed to "treating hypertension." The critical point: if you lower blood pressure with vasodilators alone before administering beta-blockers, you trigger a reflex tachycardia and increased contractility, paradoxically increasing dP/dt and worsening aortic wall stress. This phenomenon was tragically demonstrated in early dissection management before beta-blockers became standard.

Recommended Beta-Blocker Regimens:

Intravenous Options (ICU Setting):

1. Labetalol: 20 mg IV bolus, then 40-80 mg every 10 minutes until target heart rate and BP achieved, then continuous infusion 1-2 mg/min

   • Advantage: Combined alpha/beta blockade, single agent
   • Disadvantage: Slower onset, cannot be titrated as rapidly as others

2. Metoprolol: 5 mg IV bolus, repeat every 5 minutes up to 15 mg, then switch to oral dosing or continuous infusion if needed

   • Advantage: Rapid onset, titratable
   • Disadvantage: More cardioselective, may require additional agent for BP control

3. Esmolol: 500 mcg/kg bolus over 1 minute, followed by infusion at 50-300 mcg/kg/min, titrate to effect

   • Advantage: Ultra-short acting (half-life ~10 minutes), ideal for titration
   • Disadvantage: Requires continuous infusion, expensive

4. Atenolol: 5-10 mg IV bolus, wait 5 minutes, then 50-100 mg PO daily

   • Advantage: Longer acting, suitable for transition to oral therapy
   • Disadvantage: Cannot be rapidly titrated if adverse effects occur

Pearl: The Esmolol Advantage In the acute setting with hemodynamic instability, esmolol offers superior titrability due to its extremely short half-life. If the patient becomes hypotensive or bradycardic, simply stopping the infusion results in rapid offset within minutes, unlike longer-acting agents.

Adequate Beta-Blockade: How to Verify

Clinical Target: Heart rate 50-60 bpm (some guidelines recommend 60-80 bpm, but 50-60 offers more aggressive dP/dt reduction).

Measurement of dP/dt: In research settings, dP/dt is measured invasively via aortic catheterization. However, clinical surrogate endpoints are used:

• Heart rate (lower is better, with goal 50-60 bpm)
• Systolic blood pressure (100-120 mmHg target)
• Clinical absence of symptoms (chest pain, anxiety, diaphoresis)

Oyster: The Contractility Confusion Not all tachycardia is created equal. In dissection management, we target a low heart rate specifically because low heart rate correlates with reduced contractility and ventricular dP/dt. However, if a patient's tachycardia is purely reflexive (e.g., from anemia, infection, or anxiety), aggressively lowering it with beta-blockers may be harmful. The context matters: in true acute aortic syndrome with severe tachycardia from pain and sympathetic activation, beta-blockade is vital. In a patient with sinus tachycardia from sepsis, aggressive beta-blockade could precipitate hemodynamic collapse.

Vasodilators: The Secondary Agent

Once adequate beta-blockade is established (target HR 50-60), vasodilators are added to achieve the blood pressure target of SBP 100-120 mmHg (mean arterial pressure 65-75 mmHg). Vasodilators should not be used as monotherapy before beta-blockers.

Recommended Vasodilators:

1. Sodium Nitroprusside: 0.25-0.5 mcg/kg/min IV infusion, titrate to effect

   • Advantage: Rapid onset/offset, potent vasodilator, titratable
   • Disadvantage: Cyanide/thiocyanate toxicity with prolonged use (>72 hours), requires close monitoring, light-sensitive
   • Use: Reserved for acute management in ICU setting

2. Nicardipine: 5-15 mg/hour IV infusion, titratable

   • Advantage: Selective vasodilation without reflex tachycardia (due to intrinsic heart rate reduction), can be used longer-term
   • Disadvantage: Slower onset than nitroprusside, risk of tachyphylaxis
   • Use: Excellent choice in ICU, can be transitioned to PO

3. Hydralazine: 10-20 mg IV, repeat every 4-6 hours

   • Advantage: Convenient dosing, inexpensive, well-known
   • Disadvantage: Unpredictable response, can cause reflex tachycardia (hence must use with beta-blocker), longer acting
   • Use: Less ideal in acute setting due to unpredictability

4. Labetalol (as noted above): Has both alpha and beta effects, so can serve dual role if high-dose regimens used

Hack: The Dual-Agent Approach The classic ICU regimen combines esmolol or labetalol (beta-blocker) with nicardipine or nitroprusside (vasodilator). Start beta-blocker first, achieve target HR, then add vasodilator. Monitor frequently and titrate both agents together to achieve BP goal without hypotension.

Transition to Oral Therapy

Once acute phase is stabilized (typically 24-48 hours), transition to long-term oral therapy:

Recommended Oral Regimens:

1. Beta-blocker + Vasodilator Combination:

   • Beta-blocker: Metoprolol 50-200 mg daily (divided doses), Atenolol 25-100 mg daily, or Carvedilol 6.25-25 mg daily
   • Vasodilator: Amlodipine 5-10 mg daily, Diltiazem 120-360 mg daily (sustained-release), or Verapamil 120-360 mg daily

2. Alternative: ACE Inhibitor/ARB as Additional Agent

   • Lisinopril 10-40 mg daily or Losartan 50-100 mg daily
   • These agents reduce aortic stiffness and wall stress over time, complementing acute management

Pearl: The Long-Acting Dilemma Choose beta-blockers and vasodilators with predictable pharmacokinetics. Avoid agents with variable bioavailability or long half-lives initially, as dose adjustments are difficult. Once stable, longer-acting agents are acceptable.

Special Populations and Contraindications

Contraindications to Beta-Blockers:

• Acute decompensated heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (use with caution, start lower doses)
• Severe bradycardia (<50 bpm baseline)
• High-degree AV block
• Severe asthma or COPD (use cardioselective agents if necessary)

Heart Failure with Reduced EF: Paradoxically, some Type A dissections can present with acute severe aortic regurgitation and pulmonary edema (acute cardiogenic shock). While aggressive diuresis and vasodilation are needed, beta-blockade should still be initiated (target HR even lower, ~40-50 bpm, to maximize diastolic time for coronary perfusion). These patients often require urgent surgical intervention.

Pearl #4: Never Omit Beta-Blockade for Fear of Hemodynamic Compromise The hemodynamic benefit of reduced dP/dt outweighs the negative inotropic effects in dissection. Hypotensive patients with dissection should be treated with fluid, vasopressors (norepinephrine preferred), and surgery if necessary—not by withholding beta-blockers.

Monitoring and Adjustment

Frequency: Assess blood pressure and heart rate every 15-30 minutes initially in ICU, then hourly once stable.

Parameters to Monitor:

• Systolic BP (100-120 mmHg goal)
• Heart rate (50-60 bpm goal)
• Mean arterial pressure (65-75 mmHg)
• Urine output (maintained at >0.5-1 mL/kg/hr)
• Signs of organ hypoperfusion (altered mental status, cool extremities, elevated lactate)

Adjustment Triggers:

• If SBP >130 mmHg: increase vasodilator
• If HR >70 bpm: increase beta-blocker
• If SBP <90 mmHg or MAP <60 mmHg: reduce both agents, assess for rupture/tamponade
• If signs of malperfusion (elevated lactate, oliguria): reduce medications cautiously, consider surgery

The dP/dt Concept in Practice

Real-World Example: A 58-year-old male with hypertension and tobacco use presents with acute-onset severe chest pain radiating to the back. CTA confirms Type B aortic dissection. His initial vital signs are BP 165/95 mmHg, HR 115 bpm. Room-based assessment reveals severe distress and diaphoresis.

Incorrect Management: Stat administration of nitroprusside 0.3 mcg/kg/min → BP drops to 140/85 mmHg (good!), but HR increases to 135 bpm (bad—reflex tachycardia). The patient's dP/dt worsens despite blood pressure improvement.

Correct Management: Esmolol bolus 500 mcg/kg over 1 minute → HR drops to 65 bpm within 5 minutes, BP unchanged. Then nicardipine infusion initiated at 5 mg/hr, titrated to BP 110/70 mmHg. Result: HR 60 bpm, BP 110/70 mmHg, dP/dt significantly reduced. Patient's chest pain improves.

---

TEVAR (Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair) for Complicated Type B Dissections

Introduction to TEVAR: Historical Context

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) represents a paradigm shift in the management of thoracic aortic pathology. Prior to endovascular techniques (routine use beginning in the 1990s), all aortic dissections and aneurysms required open surgical repair with associated high morbidity. TEVAR has evolved to become the preferred treatment for many complicated acute Type B dissections, chronic dissections with malperfusion, and thoracic aortic aneurysms.

Indications for TEVAR in Type B Dissection

Complicated Type B Dissection is the primary indication for TEVAR. The term "complicated" encompasses:

1. Malperfusion Syndromes (Most Important Indication)

   • Visceral ischemia (mesenteric angina, elevated lactate)
   • Renal ischemia (acute kidney injury, hypertension)
   • Limb ischemia (lower extremity claudication or acute ischemia)
   • Spinal cord ischemia (paraplegia or paraparesis)
   • Cerebral ischemia (stroke from carotid involvement)

2. Signs of Impending or Contained Rupture

   • Expanding periaortic hematoma
   • Hemodynamic instability
   • Expanding aortic diameter on serial imaging

3. Uncontrolled Hypertension Despite Optimal Medical Therapy

   • Persistent SBP >140 mmHg despite dual agents at maximum doses
   • Progressive symptoms

4. Rapidly Expanding Aortic Diameter

   • Growth >5 mm/month or >10 mm over 6 months despite medical management

Malperfusion in Type B Dissection: The Mechanism

Understanding malperfusion is essential for recognizing TEVAR indications. Malperfusion occurs through two mechanisms:

1. Dynamic Obstruction: The dissection flap itself partially occludes the vessel ostium or origin of a branch vessel (commonly occurs with mesenteric or renal arteries). As the true lumen expands and contracts with each cardiac cycle, the dynamic obstruction worsens during diastole when the false lumen pressure exceeds true lumen pressure, pushing the flap toward the vessel opening.

2. Static Obstruction: The dissection flap completely occludes a vessel ostium, or the false lumen has thrombosed in that segment, eliminating flow.

Clinical Manifestation: Patients with mesenteric malperfusion may present with abdominal pain, nausea, elevated lactate, or frank bowel ischemia. Renal malperfusion manifests as acute kidney injury, hypertension, or low urine output. Limb malperfusion causes claudication or acute ischemia (cool, pulseless extremity).

How TEVAR Addresses Malperfusion

TEVAR excludes the entry tear from aortic flow by covering it with an endovascular stent graft. This accomplishes several hemodynamic changes:

1. Redirects Flow to True Lumen: By excluding the proximal dissection, flow preferentially goes to the true lumen, increasing its pressure and diameter
2. Reduces False Lumen Pressure: The false lumen gradually thromboses as high-pressure flow is excluded
3. Relieves Dynamic Obstruction: As the false lumen thromboses, the flap is no longer pushed into vessel ostia
4. Restores Branch Vessel Perfusion: The renal, mesenteric, and other branch vessels receive preferential true lumen flow

Oyster: The Aortic Remodeling Phenomenon Over weeks to months following TEVAR for dissection, the aorta undergoes remarkable remodeling. The false lumen thromboses, the true lumen expands, and the aortic wall begins to heal. This process, termed "aortic remodeling" or "true lumen expansion," has transformed outcomes in complicated dissection. Where surgery once offered the only option for malperfusion, TEVAR now provides a less invasive alternative with quicker recovery.

Technical Considerations for TEVAR in Dissection

Endograft Selection:

The choice of stent graft is critical. Standard devices used include:

• GORE TAG (W.L. Gore): Commonly used, requires sheaths 20-22 Fr
• Medtronic Valiant: Tapered design allows flexibility in coverage
• Cook TX2: Modular design allows customization

Coverage Strategy:

The goal is coverage of the primary entry tear while avoiding coverage of branch vessels (especially the artery of Adamkiewicz, critical for spinal cord perfusion).

Critical Pearl #5: The Adamkiewicz Artery Dilemma The artery of Adamkiewicz usually arises at T9-L2 level (occasionally T6-T8 or L3-L4) and is most commonly left-sided (~70%). This critical artery supplies the lower two-thirds of the spinal cord. Coverage of this artery during TEVAR significantly increases risk of paraplegia/paraparesis.

Risk Stratification for Spinal Cord Ischemia:

• Risk <5%: Single coverage segment, patient age <60, minimal previous aortic intervention
• Risk 5-10%: 2-segment coverage or prior AAA repair
• Risk >10%: 3+ segment coverage, lengthy dissection, previous aortic interventions

Mitigation Strategies for High-Risk Patients:

1. Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) Drainage: Many centers place lumbar drains in high-risk TEVAR, maintaining CSF pressure <10 mmHg to maintain spinal cord perfusion pressure. This prophylactic measure significantly reduces paraplegia risk.
2. Neuromonitoring: Intraoperative neuromonitoring using motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) helps detect spinal cord ischemia in real-time, allowing graft repositioning or intervention.
3. Staged Procedures: For extensive dissections, staged TEVAR with interval (weeks to months) between procedures reduces cumulative spinal cord ischemia risk.
4. Coverage Minimization: Limit graft coverage to the proximal 2-4 cm beyond the entry tear when anatomically feasible.

Hack: The Pre-TEVAR Planning Session Before any TEVAR in dissection, obtain high-quality CTA with 3D reconstruction. Identify:

• Location of entry tear (usually just distal to left subclavian artery in Type B)
• Extent of dissection (how far distally does it extend?)
• Status of visceral vessels (are they supplied by true or false lumen?)
• Prior aortic interventions (previous surgery, stent grafts?)
• Location of Adamkiewicz artery if identifiable

This information guides graft selection and coverage strategy.

Timing of TEVAR

Acute Phase (First 14 Days):

TEVAR for complicated Type B dissection should be performed urgently once malperfusion is diagnosed or hemodynamic instability develops. Delaying intervention while attempting medical management alone risks organ infarction (bowel, kidney, spinal cord).

Timing Considerations:

• Malperfusion → TEVAR within 24-48 hours
• Uncontrolled hypertension/expansion → TEVAR if refractory to medical management
• Rupture or contained rupture → emergent TEVAR or surgery

Chronic Phase (>14 Days):

Uncomplicated Type B dissections are managed medically initially, with endovascular intervention reserved for:

• Progressive aortic expansion
• Late-onset malperfusion
• Aortic remodeling failure (false lumen remains pressurized)
• Aortic diameter approaching rupture threshold (>55-60 mm)

Landmark Trials and Evidence

INSTEAD Trial (Endovascular Stent-Graft Placement in Patients with Type B Aortic Dissection):

Published in 2009, this prospective, randomized trial compared TEVAR plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in patients with uncomplicated acute Type B dissection.

• N = 140 patients randomized at 13 European centers
• Primary endpoint: Aortic remodeling at 2 years
• Results:
  • TEVAR group: 91% aortic remodeling (true lumen expansion, false lumen thrombosis)
  • Medical group: 19% aortic remodeling
  • Mortality at 2 years: similar between groups (~10%)
  • Major adverse events: similar between groups

Clinical Implication: While TEVAR improved aortic remodeling in uncomplicated dissection, it did not improve mortality compared to medical management alone. This finding supported the paradigm that uncomplicated Type B dissection should be managed medically initially, with TEVAR reserved for complicated cases.

INSTEAD-XL Trial (Extended Long-Term Follow-Up):

Published in 2016, this trial extended follow-up of INSTEAD patients to 5 years:

• Results:
  • TEVAR group: Sustained aortic remodeling, lower late aortic diameter, reduced late mortality (hazard ratio 0.57 compared to medical alone)
  • Medical group: Progressive aortic expansion in ~40%, late malperfusion complications

Clinical Implication: Longer-term follow-up suggested benefit of early TEVAR in reducing late complications and mortality, even in uncomplicated dissection. However, the benefit did not reach statistical significance, and both groups had acceptable outcomes. Current guidelines continue to recommend medical management for uncomplicated Type B dissection, with TEVAR for complicated cases.

Oyster: The Uncomplicated-to-Complicated Transition Approximately 10-15% of initially uncomplicated Type B dissections develop late complications (progressive expansion, malperfusion, aortic remodeling failure) over years to decades. This finding supports long-term surveillance imaging (CTA annually for first 5 years, then every 2-3 years) and a low threshold for intervention in progressive disease.

TEVAR Versus Medical Management in Uncomplicated Type B Dissection

Current Guideline Recommendations (2020 ESC, 2016 AHA/ACC):

Uncomplicated Type B Dissection:

• First-line: Aggressive medical management (beta-blockers, vasodilators) with close outpatient follow-up
• TEVAR Indication: Failure of medical management (refractory hypertension, progressive symptoms), development of complications, or aortic expansion

Complicated Type B Dissection:

• Recommendation: TEVAR or surgery (depending on anatomy and available expertise)
• High-quality evidence: Level B (expert opinion, observational studies)

Pearl #6: The "Complicated" Designation The distinction between uncomplicated and complicated Type B dissection is not always clear-cut. A patient with mesenteric pain and elevated lactate has obvious malperfusion. However, a patient with stable vital signs but gradually expanding aorta and progressive renal dysfunction occupies a gray zone. Clinical judgment, integration of laboratory findings (lactate, renal function), and imaging characteristics (aortic diameter, false lumen status) guide decision-making.

Outcomes of TEVAR in Type B Dissection

In-Hospital Outcomes:

• Technical success: 95-98% (successful graft placement with exclusion of entry tear)
• Mortality: 2-5% (mostly from malperfusion or rupture complications)
• Spinal cord ischemia: 2-5% (paraplegia/paraparesis)
• Access complications: 5-10% (vascular injury, dissection, thrombosis)
• Stroke: 1-3% (embolic, from manipulation)

Long-Term Outcomes (5-Year Follow-Up):

• Mortality: 15-20% (primarily from dissection-related complications or comorbidities)
• Aortic remodeling: 85-90% achieve favorable remodeling
• Freedom from late TEVAR or surgery: 85-90% (some require additional intervention for expansion)
• Quality of life: Substantial improvement in patients with malperfusion (pain resolution, return to normal activity)

Complications of TEVAR

Immediate Complications:

1. Access Site Injuries (5-10%):

   • Iliac artery dissection or rupture
   • Thrombosis
   • Prevention: Use of percutaneous closure devices or surgical cutdown for difficult anatomy

2. Spinal Cord Ischemia (2-5%):

   • Paraplegia (complete loss of motor function) or paraparesis (partial loss)
   • Prevention: CSF drainage, neuromonitoring, staged procedures
   • Management: If detected intraoperatively, attempt graft repositioning; if post-operative, emergent CSF drainage and optimization of perfusion

3. Left Arm Ischemia (Rare, 1-2%):

   • Results from graft coverage of left subclavian artery
   • Prevention: Selective coverage to spare left subclavian when possible
   • Management: Subclavian-carotid transposition (chimney technique) or PCI if necessary

4. Stroke (1-3%):

   • Embolic from manipulation
   • Prevention: Gentle technique, minimal guidewire manipulation, heparinization
   • Management: Supportive care, thrombolytics if hyperacute

5. Contrast-Induced Nephropathy (10-20%):

   • Risk factors: Pre-existing renal dysfunction, diabetes, dehydration
   • Prevention: Hydration, minimize contrast volume, consider alternative imaging
   • Management: Supportive care, dialysis if necessary

Late Complications:

1. Type I Endoleak (10-15%):

   • Blood flow from proximal (Type Ia) or distal (Type Ib) graft attachment sites
   • Management: Secondary intervention with extensions or additional stents

2. Type II Endoleak (20-30%):

   • Retrograde flow from branch vessels (usually intercostal/lumbar)
   • Management: Observation if stable; intervention if expanding aneurysm

3. False Lumen Rupture (1-2%):

   • Results from residual pressurization of false lumen
   • Prevention: Aggressive medical management, surveillance
   • Management: Emergency surgical repair or redo-TEVAR

4. Graft Migration (5-10%):

   • Movement of graft proximally or distally
   • Prevention: Appropriate sizing, adequate proximal landing zone
   • Management: Secondary intervention with extension grafts

Special Situations

Type B Dissection with Aortic Rupture:

Aortic rupture from Type B dissection is a surgical emergency with mortality >50% without intervention and >30% even with emergent treatment.

Clinical Presentation: Hemodynamic instability, severe back/chest pain, widened mediastinum on CXR, periaortic or hemothorax on CT.

Management:

• If patient is stable enough for CTA: Emergent TEVAR (preferable) or surgery
• If patient is in cardiac arrest: Emergency department thoracotomy for resuscitation, then TEVAR/surgery if ROSC achieved
• If massive hemorrhage: Resuscitative hypertension (target SBP 100-110 mmHg) to limit bleeding while arranging emergent intervention

Hack: The Ruptured Dissection Algorithm

1. Recognize hemodynamic instability + widened mediastinum on CXR = presumed rupture
2. Activate massive transfusion protocol
3. Brief CTA if patient remains in reasonable clinical condition (<5 minutes)
4. If TEVAR available and anatomy suitable: Emergent TEVAR to ICU (not operating room)
5. If TEVAR unavailable or anatomy unsuitable: Emergency surgery
6. Do NOT delay intervention for prolonged diagnostic imaging or optimization

Type B Dissection with Carotid Involvement:

Approximately 5-10% of Type B dissections extend to involve the left common carotid or right subclavian artery, potentially causing stroke.

Clinical Presentation: Stroke (most common), transient ischemic attack, or asymptomatic dissection involving carotid ostium.

Management:

• Acute stroke from dissection-related carotid occlusion: Standard stroke protocols (thrombolytics, thrombectomy if appropriate)
• Asymptomatic carotid involvement: TEVAR to exclude entry tear, allow true lumen expansion and carotid reperfusion
• Recurrent stroke despite TEVAR: Consider additional intervention (carotid stenting, transcranial Doppler monitoring for emboli)

Type B Dissection with Visceral Malperfusion:

Mesenteric, renal, or celiac artery involvement from Type B dissection causes the most acute complications of malperfusion.

Clinical Presentation:

• Mesenteric: Abdominal pain (often postprandial in chronic dissection), elevated lactate, bowel ischemia/infarction
• Renal: Acute kidney injury, hypertension, elevated creatinine
• Celiac: Abdominal pain, hepatic ischemia

TEVAR for Malperfusion: TEVAR addresses dynamic malperfusion by excluding the entry tear and allowing true lumen expansion. However, if static obstruction exists (flap completely occluding ostium) or if the visceral vessel is primarily supplied by the false lumen, TEVAR alone may be insufficient.

Additional Interventions for Refractory Malperfusion:

1. Percutaneous fenestration: Using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), a needle is advanced across the dissection flap to create communication between true and false lumen, allowing pressure equalization
2. True lumen stenting: PCI with stent placement in true lumen to hold it open and prevent flap occlusion
3. Branch vessel intervention: PCI or stenting of individual branch vessels if dissection occludes their ostium

Oyster: The Fenestration Rescue Percutaneous fenestration deserves special mention as a clever salvage technique. In malperfusion from static obstruction (flap-occluded vessel ostium), TEVAR alone may fail. If fenestration is performed, pressure between true and false lumen equalizes, relieving flap bulging into vessel ostia. This technique can avert the need for major surgery (bowel resection, arterial reconstruction) in mesenteric ischemia. Fenestration is typically performed at specialized aortic centers with IVUS and interventional expertise.

Long-Term Surveillance After TEVAR

Imaging Protocol:

• First 3 months: CTA at 1 month and 3 months
• Year 1: CTA at 6 months and 12 months
• Years 2-5: Annual CTA
• Beyond 5 years: CTA every 2-3 years if stable

Surveillance Parameters:

• Aortic diameter at proximal and distal landing zones
• Aortic diameter at maximum extent of dissection
• False lumen diameter and status (thrombosed vs. patent)
• Graft position (proximal/distal migration)
• Endoleaks (types and size)
• Branch vessel patency

Intervention Triggers:

• Aortic expansion >5 mm/year or >10 mm in 6 months
• Increasing endoleak with aortic expansion
• Type Ia or Ib endoleak (requires intervention)
• Graft migration with compromise of branch vessels

---

Clinical Integration: A Comprehensive Management Algorithm

Acute Presentation Suspected AAS

Step 1: Immediate Recognition and Triage

• High clinical suspicion with risk factors (hypertension, atherosclerosis, connective tissue disorder, recent iatrogenic aortic instrumentation)
• Chief complaint: Severe chest/back/abdominal pain (classic) OR atypical presentation (syncope, stroke, MI, heart failure)
• Vital signs: Hypertension (common) or hypotension (rupture/tamponade)

Action: Activate AAS protocol. Notify cardiothoracic surgery, ICU, interventional radiology, and emergency medicine immediately. Do not wait for confirmatory imaging.

Step 2: Confirmatory Imaging

• Gold standard: CTA with IV contrast of chest, abdomen, pelvis with thin slices (1-2 mm)
• If contrast contraindicated (severe renal disease): TEE (transesophageal echocardiography) can be performed at bedside
• Time goal: Imaging obtained within 30 minutes of ED presentation

Key Imaging Question: "Does the ascending aorta enhance with contrast?" → Yes or indeterminate = Type A (SURGERY), No with descending involvement = Type B (MEDICAL)

Step 3: Risk Stratification and Ancillary Testing

• Type A: ECG (look for STEMI if right coronary involved), troponin, echo (look for AR, tamponade)
• Type B: ECG, troponin, lactate (baseline, especially if abdominal pain suggests malperfusion), creatinine/urine output

Step 4: Initial Medical Management (Both Type A and B)

• Beta-blockers first: Esmolol 500 mcg/kg bolus, then 50-300 mcg/kg/min infusion (target HR 50-60 bpm)
• Vasodilators second: Add nicardipine or nitroprusside once HR controlled (target SBP 100-120 mmHg, MAP 65-75 mmHg)
• Analgesia: Morphine 2-4 mg IV (relieves pain and reduces sympathetic tone)
• Anxiolytics: Lorazepam 2-4 mg IV if agitated

Step 5: Type-Specific Management

TYPE A DISSECTION:

• Stat cardiothoracic surgery consultation
• Prepare for immediate OR transport
• ICU monitoring with arterial line, central line, continuous telemetry
• Continue aggressive medical management during preoperative workup
• If patient becomes unstable (hypotension, pulses paradoxus, JVD → tamponade): Consider emergent pericardiocentesis at bedside for temporization

TYPE B DISSECTION (Uncomplicated):

• ICU admission
• Continue aggressive medical management (beta-blockers, vasodilators)
• Monitor vital signs hourly, reassess for complications
• Baseline imaging (CTA): identifies entry tear, extent of dissection, visceral involvement
• Assess for malperfusion: physical exam (ischemic limb?), labs (lactate elevation?), symptoms (abdominal pain? acute renal dysfunction?)

If Uncomplicated: Plan outpatient follow-up with cardiology/cardiac surgery in 1-2 weeks; transition to oral agents over 24-48 hours

If Complicated: Activate interventional radiology, arrange urgent TEVAR (or surgery if anatomy unsuitable)

---

Conclusion: Synthesis for the Critical Care Practitioner

Acute aortic syndromes remain among the most challenging and time-sensitive diagnoses in critical care. Success requires integration of clinical suspicion, rapid imaging confirmation, aggressive medical management, and decisive intervention when indicated.

Key Takeaways:

1. High suspicion is paramount: Do not anchor on classic presentations. Aortic dissection mimics stroke, MI, heart failure, and acute abdomen. When in doubt, obtain CTA.

2. Type A = Emergency: Any ascending aortic involvement mandates immediate surgery. Do not delay for additional testing.

3. Type B = Medical first: Uncomplicated Type B dissection benefits from aggressive medical management with beta-blockers (dP/dt reduction) before vasodilators. Long-term outcomes are excellent with medical therapy alone in uncomplicated cases.

4. Complications change the equation: Malperfusion, uncontrolled hypertension, rupture, or rapid expansion warrant urgent intervention (TEVAR or surgery) for Type B dissection.

5. IMH and PAU deserve respect: These entities, though lacking classical dissection anatomy, carry similar risks of progression and rupture. Manage aggressively and surveil carefully.

6. TEVAR is transformative: For complicated Type B dissection with malperfusion, TEVAR offers a less invasive alternative to surgery with excellent outcomes for aortic remodeling and organ perfusion restoration.

7. Long-term surveillance is essential: All acute aortic syndromes require long-term imaging and clinical follow-up to detect late complications and progression.

The critical care practitioner must balance aggressive hemodynamic management, judicious triage to surgery or endovascular intervention, and meticulous monitoring for complications. With this integrated approach, outcomes in aortic catastrophes continue to improve.

---

References

1. Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease. Circulation. 2010;121(13):e266-e369.

2. Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, et al. 2014 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(41):2873-2926.

3. Smedira NG, Orszulak TA. Acute aortic dissection and intramural hematoma: a diagnostic and therapeutic update. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2016;41(9):316-360.

4. Hagan TA, Nienaber CA, Isselbacher EM, et al. The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD): new insights into an old disease. JAMA. 2000;283(7):897-905.

5. Nienaber CA, Kische S, Rehders TC, et al. Rapid transport and treatment of acute aortic dissection: a comparison in two international registries. Lancet. 2011;372(9656):1905-1911.

6. Dake MD, Thompson M, van Sambeek M, et al. DISSECT: a new mnemonic for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndromes. Circulation. 2008;118(25):2768-2778.

7. Nienaber CA, Kische S, Rousseau H, et al. Endovascular repair of type B aortic dissection: long-term results of the randomized investigation of stent grafts in aortic dissection trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6(4):407-416.

8. Brunkwall J, Kasprzak P, Lonn L, et al. Endovascular repair of acute aortic dissection (STEAD): long-term follow-up of a prospective, randomized, open trial. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(5):1106-1115.

9. Szeto WY, Moeller P, Desai N, et al. Endovascular repair of thoracic aortic disease: review and update on current devices and specialty considerations. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;28(2):402-423.

10. Mussa FF, Horton JD, Moridzadeh R, et al. Acute aortic dissection and intramural hematoma: a systematic review. JAMA. 2016;316(7):754-763.

11. Sueyoshi E, Sakamoto I, Hayashi K, et al. Growth rate of aortic diameter in patients with type B aortic dissection during the chronic phase. Circulation. 2011;123(16):1741-1746.

12. Fattori R, Cao P, De Rango P, et al. Interdisciplinary expert consensus document on management of type B aortic dissection. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(16):1661-1678.

13. Greenberg RK, Lu Q, Roselli EE, et al. Contemporary analysis of descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair: a comparison of endovascular and open techniques. Circulation. 2008;118(8):808-817.

14. Ince H, Rehders TC, P髜-Hoffmann G, et al. Severe neurological complications after endovascular stent grafting of the thoracic aorta: the results of the multicenter German TEVAR registry. J Endovasc Ther. 2005;12(2):212-222.

15. Melby SJ, Zierer A, Kaiser SP, et al. Acute aortic dissection: Part I—surgical classification and root decision making. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84(4):1180-1189.

16. Eggebrecht H, Breuninger K, Martini S, et al. Endovascular therapy of penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer of the thoracic aorta. Circulation. 2005;111(12):1533-1540.

17. Søgaard R, Labrousse L, Flores J. EuroIntervention expert review: aortic dissection—focus on endovascular repair. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(3):350-361.

18. Patterson BO, Holt PJ, Nienaber CA, et al. Aortic pathology is frequently missed on imaging: insights from the European Registry on Acute Aortic Type A Dissection Intramural Hematoma and Penetrating Ulcer. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;50(3):283-291.

19. Castelli P, Caronno R, Marsico R, et al. Intramural hematoma of the thoracic aorta: presentation and long-term outcome in a series of 23 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75(4):1065-1070.

20. Oo A, McDermott J, Gomez R, et al. Intramural hematoma of the thoracic aorta. Heart Lung Circ. 2012;21(6-7):405-412.

---

Author Notes

This review synthesizes current evidence from major guidelines (AHA/ACC 2016, ESC 2020), landmark trials (INSTEAD, INSTEAD-XL, STEAD), and observational registries (IRAD). Clinical pearls and management hacks are derived from expert consensus and the authors' institutional experience managing aortic catastrophes in high-volume academic centers. The approach presented here emphasizes rapid diagnosis, aggressive medical management, and selective intervention—principles that have substantially improved outcomes over the past two decades.