Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:2006. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.02.026
© 2009 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Correspondence
Reply
Jonathan Golledge, MChir,
Jun Parker
Department of Surgery, James Cook University, School of Medicine, Townsville, QLD, 4811 Australia
(Email: jonathan.golledge{at}jcu.edu.au).
To the Editor:
We thank Dr Khoynezhad [1] for the letter regarding our recent summary analysis [2]. The author raises an important issue regarding definitions in the context of aortic dissection. We agree that time-based definitions (based on
2 weeks from symptom onset) of dissection and the term complicated despite being currently employed widely are not the best way of classifying patients. Clearly one physician's definition of poorly controlled hypertension for example is likely to vary from another. In order to compare between groups more clearly, defined rationales for intervention are required. These could include criteria based on haemodynamic instability, sequelae of malperfusion and other less serious complications. We look to working parties on this area to develop agreed definitions of the common complications of aortic dissection that would normally indicate the need for intervention and their subsequent adoption in reported studies to aid summary analyses of the type we carried out.
 |
References
|
|---|
- Khoynezhad A. Comparing apples to oranges: endovascular management of complicated acute type B aortic dissection (letter) Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:2005-2006.[Free Full Text]
- Parker JD, Golledge J. Outcome of endovascular treatment of acute type B aortic dissection Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86:1707-1712.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Related Article
-
Comparing Apples to Oranges: Endovascular Management of Complicated Acute Type B Aortic Dissection
- Ali Khoynezhad
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2009 87: 2005-2006.
[Extract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]