4.6 Article

Clinical features of acute aortic dissection from the Registry of Aortic Dissection in China

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
卷 148, 期 6, 页码 2995-3000

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.07.068

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Technology Research and Development Program for 12th Five Year Plan (Beijing, China) [2011BAI11B20]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To establish a systematic registry of aortic dissection in China, assess the clinical features of Chinese patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD), and compare our results with the data published by the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD). Methods: We established the first Registry of Aortic Dissection in China (Sino-RAD) in 2011. Then we evaluated 1003 patients with AAD in Sino-RAD and compared our results with those reported by IRAD. Results: Compared with IRAD, the patients with AAD in Sino-RAD were significantly younger. Also, the ratio of male patients in Sino-RAD was significantly greater for the total cohort and the type A and B cohorts. The overall in-hospital mortality was 10.3% in Sino-RAD. For type A dissection, more patients in Sino-RAD received medical treatment and fewer received surgical treatment. The overall mortality, mortality of medical treatment, and mortality of surgical treatment was lower in Sino-RAD. In type B dissection, fewer patients in Sino-RAD received medical and surgical treatment and more received endovascular treatment. Conclusions: The first Sino-RAD, including 15 large cardiovascular centers throughout China, was established. Our data were compared with those reported by IRAD. We found that, compared with Western populations, Chinese patients with AAD showed 6 differences, including earlier onset, more male patients, a low incidence of hypertension, a low incidence of chest pain, a high incidence of back pain, great differences in the choice of therapeutic strategies, and relatively low in-hospital mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据