Outcomes in pregnant women with acute aortic dissections: A review of the literature from 2003 to 2013

S. Rajagopalan, N. Nwazota, S. Chandrasekhar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

44 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background Acute aortic dissection in pregnant women is a rare but potentially life-threatening event. Our aim was to evaluate maternal and fetal outcomes of acute aortic dissection during pregnancy.

Methods We conducted a review of literature of the PubMed database to identify publications related to pregnant women with acute aortic dissections during the period 2003-2013: 59 articles were included in the study.

Results A total of 75 patients were included in the analyses. Stanford type A dissections were the most common form, accounting for 77% of all cases. The majority (78%) occurred in the third trimester and immediate postpartum period. Inherited connective tissue disorders were causative in 49% of patients. Maternal mortality was not statistical different between type A and type B dissections (21% vs. 23%), but fetal outcomes were worse in type B dissections (35% vs. 10.3%; P < 0.05). Fetal mortality in type A dissections was dependent on the timing of aortic repair, with antepartum aortic repair associated with a higher mortality (36%).

Conclusion Despite advances in diagnostic and surgical techniques, maternal and fetal mortalities in pregnant patients with aortic dissection remain high. Patients undergoing combined cesarean section with aortic repair had favorable fetal outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)348-356
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia
Volume23
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Aortic dissection
  • Fetal outcome
  • Maternal outcome
  • Pregnancy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Outcomes in pregnant women with acute aortic dissections: A review of the literature from 2003 to 2013'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this