Does risk of rupture of ascending AA vary by etiology,?

Posted by gdog @gdog, Apr 27 1:44pm

My aortic aneurysm is at 5.0. Mine likely due to giant cell arthritis 10 yrs ago. Discovered at 4.4 cm 6 yrs ago. Does risk of rupture vary whether cause is congenital, inflammatory or atherosclerotic?

Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Aortic Aneurysms Support Group.

What is the location and what did your doctor say? at 5.0 cm, you really need a cardiologist that specializes in aortic aneurysms because they would be getting you with a surgeon for consultation at this point regardless of cause.

REPLY

Plan is to confirm Echo findings with CT then refer to surgeon. The standard cut off for surgery is 5.5 with some evidence that the inflection point for greater risk of rupture is lower. Would be nice to know if this varied by cause of the AA.

REPLY
@gdog

Plan is to confirm Echo findings with CT then refer to surgeon. The standard cut off for surgery is 5.5 with some evidence that the inflection point for greater risk of rupture is lower. Would be nice to know if this varied by cause of the AA.

Jump to this post

I ended up with a Bentall procedure at 4.7 on the ascending aorta to 4.8 on the aortic root. The root ruptured following 3 other major procedures done during surgery. Those numbers are guidelines and not magical because other factors that may be directly or indirectly related can come into play. The number of dissections, tears and ruptures have been estimated at ~50% between 5.0 and 5.5 in several medical journals. I am not trying to scare you.

This is a bit of a read but worth it.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001106

REPLY

My understanding is that the cutoff for surgery does vary. I'm not sure about giant cell (arteritis? arthritis?). There are some genetic conditions that move the threshold for surgery lower. The link @rlhix posted discusses this. Those are guidelines, which means they may not include the latest research (not that there is any).

Even without the giant cell arteritis as a probable cause, the decision on whether to have surgery at 5.0 or 5.5 is being studied. If you spend some time googling, you can probably find a page that describes the clinical trial. For multi-disciplinary teams and a high-volume center, there is some evidence I think that the risk of surgery at 5.0 may be less that than the risk of dissection. The key point being multi-disciplinary team at a high-volume center. That said, I have no medical background. That's just my take from the reading I have done after being diagnosed with a 4.5 cm aneurysm. Coincidentally, I had PMR at the time of the diagnosis and wondered if it could be related. I think not and I never had giant cell arteritis.

BTW, did they scan your abdominal aorta?

REPLY
@bitsygirl

My understanding is that the cutoff for surgery does vary. I'm not sure about giant cell (arteritis? arthritis?). There are some genetic conditions that move the threshold for surgery lower. The link @rlhix posted discusses this. Those are guidelines, which means they may not include the latest research (not that there is any).

Even without the giant cell arteritis as a probable cause, the decision on whether to have surgery at 5.0 or 5.5 is being studied. If you spend some time googling, you can probably find a page that describes the clinical trial. For multi-disciplinary teams and a high-volume center, there is some evidence I think that the risk of surgery at 5.0 may be less that than the risk of dissection. The key point being multi-disciplinary team at a high-volume center. That said, I have no medical background. That's just my take from the reading I have done after being diagnosed with a 4.5 cm aneurysm. Coincidentally, I had PMR at the time of the diagnosis and wondered if it could be related. I think not and I never had giant cell arteritis.

BTW, did they scan your abdominal aorta?

Jump to this post

Good answers from bitsygirl and rlhix. Informative! Etiology is definitely considered in the timing of repair. A history of Giant cell arteritis (vs arthritis) is known to degrade the artery walls and facilitate aortic aneurysm. So gdog, when you see your surgeon, your history needs to be part of your discussion. Good luck! We wish you the best as you move forward!
Upartist

REPLY
@bitsygirl

My understanding is that the cutoff for surgery does vary. I'm not sure about giant cell (arteritis? arthritis?). There are some genetic conditions that move the threshold for surgery lower. The link @rlhix posted discusses this. Those are guidelines, which means they may not include the latest research (not that there is any).

Even without the giant cell arteritis as a probable cause, the decision on whether to have surgery at 5.0 or 5.5 is being studied. If you spend some time googling, you can probably find a page that describes the clinical trial. For multi-disciplinary teams and a high-volume center, there is some evidence I think that the risk of surgery at 5.0 may be less that than the risk of dissection. The key point being multi-disciplinary team at a high-volume center. That said, I have no medical background. That's just my take from the reading I have done after being diagnosed with a 4.5 cm aneurysm. Coincidentally, I had PMR at the time of the diagnosis and wondered if it could be related. I think not and I never had giant cell arteritis.

BTW, did they scan your abdominal aorta?

Jump to this post

No AAA

REPLY
@gdog

Plan is to confirm Echo findings with CT then refer to surgeon. The standard cut off for surgery is 5.5 with some evidence that the inflection point for greater risk of rupture is lower. Would be nice to know if this varied by cause of the AA.

Jump to this post

There are numerous factors that determine risk of rupture including wall vasculitis, connective tissue issues, and, of course, life style factors such as blood pressure? Etc.. Please see a vascular specialist and an aortic aneurysm surgeon specialist also.

REPLY

Thanks for the replies. Helpful information.

REPLY
Please sign in or register to post a reply.