Understanding the similarities and differences between myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation is an essential step for proper patients’ management in current practice. Both syndromes are caused by critical stenosis or total occlusion of coronary arteries (mostly due to thrombosis on atherosclerotic plaque), and manifest with a similar clinical presentation. Recent epidemiologic studies show that the relative incidence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) moves in an opposite fashion (decreasing and increasing respectively), with a prognosis that is worse at short-term follow-up for STEMI but comparable at long-term. Current management differs, as for STEMIs, immediate reperfusion is recommended, while for NSTEMIs, risk stratification is mandatory in order to stratify patients’ risk, and then decide the timing for coronary angiography. Periprocedural and technical aspects of the interventional management, as well as antithrombotic medications, are for the most similarly implemented in the two types of MI, with routine radial access, DES implant, and novel P2Y12 inhibitors representing the standard of care in both cases. The following review article aims to compare the two types of MI, with and without persistent STsegment elevation. The main purpose is to explore their similarities and differences and address areas of uncertainty with regards to clinical presentation, therapeutic management, and prognosis. The identification of high-risk NSTEMI patients is important as they may require an individualised approach that can substantially overlap with current STEMI recommendations, and their mortality remains high if their management is delayed.

The aorta is the largest artery in the body, delivering oxygenated blood from the left ventricle to all organs. Dissection of the aorta is a lethal condition caused by a tear in the intimal layer of the aorta, followed by blood loss within the aortic wall and separation of the layers to full dissection. The aorta can be affected by a wide range of causes including acute conditions such as trauma and mechanical damage; and genetic conditions such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and connective tissue disorders; all increasing the risk of dissection. Both rapid diagnostic recognition and advanced multidisciplinary treatment are critical in managing aortic dissection patients. The treatment depends on the severity and location of the dissection. Open surgical repair is the gold standard of treatment for dissections located to the proximal part of the aorta and the arch, while endovascular interventions are recommended for most distal or type B aortic dissections. In this review article, we examine the epidemiology, pathophysiology, contemporary diagnoses, and management of aortic dissection.

Background: Type B aortic dissection is a life-threatening acute aortic condition often with acute ischemic signs or symptoms. With initial management focusing on alleviating malperfusion and pain, and avoiding propagation of dissection or rupture both systolic blood and pulse pressure should be reduced initially by an aggressive medical approach. In the setting of persistent signs of complications endovascular strategies have replaced open surgery and led to a fourfold increase in early survival and better long-term outcomes. Methods: An electronic health database search was performed on articles published between January 2006 and July 2017. Publications were included in this review if (I) the index aortic pathology was type B aortic (distal) dissection; (II) when medical management, open surgical replacement or thoracic endovascular aortic repair were among those options; (III) when at least one of all basic outcome criteria such as survival, spinal cord ischemia and cerebrovascular accident was reported; (IV) when ≥15 serial patients were included. A total of 62 studies were eligible and analysed. Results: Our manuscript has summarized data collected over 12 years on management specific outcomes in the setting of distal aortic dissection and provides an up-to-date interpretation of the published evidence. For complicated cases, treated acutely, the 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 7.3% when managed by endovascular means, whereas the pooled rate for 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 19.0% when subjected to open repair. For acute uncomplicated type B dissection usually treated with blood pressure lowering medications, the pooled 30-day or in-hospital mortality rate was 2.4%. Survival rates at 5 years averaged at 60% (40% mortality). Freedom from any aortic event ranged from 34.0% to 83.9%, underlining an inherent risk of progression and late complications. For chronic complicated type B dissection, the rates of stroke, paraplegia and operative mortality following endovascular repair ranged from 5% to 13%, 2% to 13% and 2 to 13%, respectively, while 5-year survival rates after open repair ranged from 60% to 90%. In chronic uncomplicated type B dissection almost 90% of patients survive initial hospitalization and were subjected to medical management with a 5-year survival of 50–80%. However, up to 20–55% of medically treated patients develop aneurysmal degeneration after 5 years with an unknown risk of rupture. Conclusions: Currently, the less invasive strategy of endovascular repair (as compared to open surgery) provides improved 30-day or in-hospital survival in the setting of complicated acute type B aortic dissection and may seek broad application. Open surgical aortic reconstruction should be left to experienced aortic centres if endovascular management is not an option.

Acute aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition associated with high morbidity and mortality rates and a long history of challenges to both diagnose and manage this condition successfully. The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) was established in 1996 as a global database to understand this old disease better and improve care for dissection. IRAD initially targeted various areas including etiological factors of dissection, modes of presentation, clinical features, physical findings, imaging, management, and outcomes, and is currently branching out in more specific fields such as endovascular intervention, genetic profiling, and functional imaging. Although presenting symptoms and physical findings have not changed significantly over two decades, the widespread use of computed tomography is standard and has improved the diagnostic pathway. Moreover, more patients are managed with appropriate procedures, such as surgery in type A, and endovascular therapy in subsets of type B aortic dissection. With these ongoing improvements in swift diagnostic work-up and therapeutic care, fewer patients are not getting appropriate treatment and more patients survive once they reach hospital.