Search

Turner syndrome (TS) affects 50 per 100 000 females. TS affects multiple organs through all stages of life, necessitating multidisciplinary care. This guideline extends previous ones and includes important new advances, within diagnostics and genetics, estrogen treatment, fertility, co-morbidities, and neurocognition and neuropsychology. Exploratory meetings were held in 2021 in Europe and United States culminating with a consensus meeting in Aarhus, Denmark in June 2023. Prior to this, eight groups addressed important areas in TS care: (1) diagnosis and genetics, (2) growth, (3) puberty and estrogen treatment, (4) cardiovascular health, (5) transition, (6) fertility assessment, monitoring, and counselling, (7) health surveillance for comorbidities throughout the lifespan, and (8) neurocognition and its implications for mental health and well-being. Each group produced proposals for the present guidelines, which were meticulously discussed by the entire group. Four pertinent questions were submitted for formal GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) evaluation with systematic review of the literature. The guidelines project was initiated by the European Society for Endocrinology and the Pediatric Endocrine Society, in collaboration with members from the European Society for Pediatric Endocrinology, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, the European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions, the Society for Endocrinology, and the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Society for Pediatric Endocrinology, Australia and New Zealand Society for Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, Latin American Society for Pediatric Endocrinology, Arab Society for Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, and the Asia Pacific Pediatric Endocrine Society. Advocacy groups appointed representatives for pre-meeting discussions and the consensus meeting.

Findings regarding the relation between aortic size and risk factors are heterogeneous. This study aimed to generate new insights from a population-based adult cohort on aortic root dimensions and their association with age, anthropometric measures, and cardiac risk factors and evaluate the incidence of acute aortic events. Participants from the fifth examination round of the Copenhagen City Heart study (aged 20 to 98 years) with applicable echocardiograms and no history of aortic disease or valve surgery were included. Aorta diameter was assessed at the annulus, sinus of Valsalva, sinotubular junction, and the tubular part of the ascending aorta. The study population comprised 1,796 men and 2,316 women; mean age: 56.4 ± 17.0 and 56.9 ± 18.1 years, respectively. Men had larger aortic root diameters than women regardless of height indexing (p <0.01). Age, height, weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, pulse pressure, hypertension, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and smoking were positively correlated with aortic sinus diameter in the crude and gender-adjusted analyses. However, after full adjustment, only height, weight, and diastolic blood pressure remained significantly positively correlated with aortic sinus diameter (p <0.001). For systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure, the correlation was inverse (p <0.001). During follow-up (median 5.4 [quartile 1 to quartile 3 4.5 to 6.3] years), the incidence rate of first-time acute aortic events was 13.6 (confidence interval 4.4 to 42.2) per 100,000 person-years. In conclusion, beyond anthropometric measures, age, and gender, diastolic blood pressure was the only cardiac risk factor that was independently correlated with aortic root dimensions. The number of aortic events during follow-up was low.

Methods All patients in Denmark with a first-time diagnosis of acute aortic dissection between 2006 and 2015 were identified by national registries. The main outcomes were in-hospital mortality and long-term survival in hospital survivors. Results The study population comprised 1157 (68%) patients with type A aortic dissection and 556 (32%) patients with type B aortic dissection, median age of 66 (57-74) years and 70 (61-79) years, respectively. Men accounted for 64%. Median follow-up was 8.9 (6.8-11.5) years. Of patients with type A aortic dissection, 74% were managed surgically, whereas 22% of the patients with type B aortic dissection were managed with surgery or endovascular technique. In-hospital mortality was 27% for type A aortic dissection overall (surgery, 18%; no surgery, 52%) and 16% for type B aortic dissection (surgery or endovascular treatment, 13%; conservative treatment, 17%; P < .001, type A vs type B). Of patients discharged alive, survival was persistently better for type A aortic dissection than for type B aortic dissection (P < .001). Unadjusted 1- and 3-year survival of patients with type A aortic dissection discharged alive was 96% and 91%, respectively, for surgically managed and 88% and 78% without surgery. For type B aortic dissection, the numbers were 89% and 83% for endovascular/surgically managed and 89% and 77% for conservatively managed. Conclusions We found higher in-hospital mortality for type A and type B aortic dissection than is reported from referral center registries. Type A aortic dissection had the highest mortality rate during the acute phase, whereas for patients who were discharged alive, the mortality rate was higher for patients with type B aortic dissection., BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe characteristics and outcomes in a nationwide population of patients with acute type A and type B aortic dissection.METHODS: All patients in Denmark with a first-time diagnosis of acute aortic dissection between 2006 and 2015 were identified by national registries. The main outcomes were in-hospital mortality and long-term survival in hospital survivors.RESULTS: The study population comprised 1157 (68%) patients with type A aortic dissection and 556 (32%) patients with type B aortic dissection, median age of 66 (57-74) years and 70 (61-79) years, respectively. Men accounted for 64%. Median follow-up was 8.9 (6.8-11.5) years. Of patients with type A aortic dissection, 74% were managed surgically, whereas 22% of the patients with type B aortic dissection were managed with surgery or endovascular technique. In-hospital mortality was 27% for type A aortic dissection overall (surgery, 18%; no surgery, 52%) and 16% for type B aortic dissection (surgery or endovascular treatment, 13%; conservative treatment, 17%; P < .001, type A vs type B). Of patients discharged alive, survival was persistently better for type A aortic dissection than for type B aortic dissection (P < .001). Unadjusted 1- and 3-year survival of patients with type A aortic dissection discharged alive was 96% and 91%, respectively, for surgically managed and 88% and 78% without surgery. For type B aortic dissection, the numbers were 89% and 83% for endovascular/surgically managed and 89% and 77% for conservatively managed.CONCLUSIONS: We found higher in-hospital mortality for type A and type B aortic dissection than is reported from referral center registries. Type A aortic dissection had the highest mortality rate during the acute phase, whereas for patients who were discharged alive, the mortality rate was higher for patients with type B aortic dissection.