Midterm survival after aortic repair versus conservative treatment in patients with penetrating aortic ulcer.

Background: The clinical outcomes and survival of patients with penetrating aortic ulcers (PAU) were evaluated in a tertiary care hospital, comparing those who underwent aortic repair to those treated conservatively. Patients and methods: A retrospective single-centre analysis included all patients that underwent a computed tomography angiography (CT-A) scan with the diagnosis of a PAU between January 2009 and May 2019. "PAU" was identified in 1,493 of 112,506 CT-A scan reports in 576 patients. Clinical and angiomorphological data were collected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), with secondary outcomes focusing on identifying risk factors for poor OS. Survival probabilities were analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method using the log-rank test. A Cox hazard model using survival as dependent variable with stepwise backward eliminations based on the likelihood ratios was employed. Results: 315 PAUs were identified in 278 patients. The prevalence in the cohort was 0.8%. The mean age of the patients was 74.4 years, and they were predominantly male (n = 208, 74.8%). The mean ulcer depth was 11.8 mm (range 2-50 mm). Out of the patients, 232 were asymptomatic (83.5%). Among 178 PAUs (56.5%), high-risk factors, such as ulcer depth >10 mm, aortic diameter >40 mm, and ulcer length >20 mm, were observed. Aortic repair was associated with a better mean OS compared to conservatively managed patients (72.6 versus 32.2 months, p = 0.001). The Cox hazard model showed that ulcer depth >1 mm was associated with poor OS (HR 0.67, p = 0.048), while aortic repair was related to a better OS (HR 4.365, p<0.013). Conclusions: Aortic repair is associated with better OS, but this finding should be interpreted with caution because of differences in age and comorbidities between the groups. Further evaluation is warranted through prospective studies with randomized groups. Further assessment for angiomorphological parameters is recommended to identify patients at increased risk for poor OS.