Long-term durability of preserved aortic root after repair of acute type A aortic dissection

Proximal versus extensive repair in acute type A aortic dissection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of proximal repair (PR) versus extensive repair (ER) for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD).

METHODS

A literature search in three databases was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Studies comparing PR versus ER for ATAAD were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies incorporating 7113 patients (PR: 5080; ER: 2033) were included. Patients undergoing PR presented decreased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.67 [95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.53-0.85]; p < 0.01) and post-operative bleeding (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.60-0.95]; p = 0.02) compared to ER. Meta-regression analysis revealed that in-hospital mortality was not influenced by differences regarding the extent of dissection (p = 0.43). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (SMD:-0.93 [95% CI - 1.22, - 0.66]; p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (SMD:-0.19 [95% CI - 0.34, - 0.05]; p = 0.01) were also lower in the PR group, while there was no difference in terms of renal failure and permanent neurological deficit. The ER approach demonstrated a lower post-discharge mortality compared to PR (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.09, 1.97]; p = 0.01), while the post-discharge reoperation rate was comparable between the two groups. 1 and 3-year overall survival (OS) were comparable between PR and ER (OR 1.05, [95% CI 0.77-1.44]; p = 0.76) and (OR 1.27 [95% CI 0.86-1.86]; p = 0.23), respectively. The 5-year OS (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.16-2.41]; p = 0.01) was in favor of the PR arm.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ATAAD, PR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality but higher odds of late mortality. ER and PR demonstrated similar post-operative complication and reoperation rates.

Type A aortic dissection in the East and West: A comparative study between two hospitals from China and the US

BACKGROUND

In this study, we compare the clinical characteristics, intraoperative management, and postoperative outcomes of patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) between two academic medical hospitals in the United States and China.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2017, 641 and 150 patients from Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (NDTH) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) were enrolled. Patient demographics, clinical features, surgical techniques, and postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The annual number of patients presenting with ATAAD at MGH remained relatively stable, while the number at NDTH increased significantly over the study period. The average age was 51 years at NDTH and 61 years at MGH (P < .001). The percentage of patients with known hypertension at the two centers was similar. The time interval from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was significantly longer at NDTH than MGH (11 vs 3.5 hours; P < .001). Associated complications at presentation were more common at NDTH than MGH. More than 90% of patients (91% NDTH and 92% MGH) underwent surgery. The postoperative stroke rate was higher at MGH (12% vs 4%; P < .001); however, the 30-day mortality rate was lower (7% vs 16%; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant increase in the number of ATAAD at NDTH during the study period while the number at MGH remained stable. Hypertension was a common major risk factor; however, the onset of ATAAD at NDTH was nearly one decade earlier than MGH. Chinese patients tended to have more complicated preoperative pathophysiology at presentation and underwent more extensive surgical repair.

Short- and long-term outcomes of aortic root repair and replacement in patients undergoing acute type A aortic dissection repair: Twenty-year experience

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to evaluate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of aortic root repair and aortic root replacement and provide evidence for root management in acute type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

From 1996 to 2017, 491 patients underwent aortic root repair (n = 307) or aortic root replacement (n = 184) (62% bioprosthesis) for acute type A aortic dissection. Indications for aortic root replacement were intimal tear at the aortic root, root measuring 4.5 cm or more, connective tissue disease, or unrepairable aortic valvulopathy. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and reoperation rate for root pathology.

RESULTS

Patients' median age was 61 years and 56 years in the aortic root repair group and aortic root replacement group, respectively. The aortic root replacement group had more renal failure requiring dialysis, previous cardiac intervention or surgery, heart failure, coronary malperfusion syndrome, acute myocardial infarction, and severe aortic insufficiency, as well as concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, tricuspid valve repair, and longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp times but similar arch procedures. Perioperative outcomes were similar in the aortic root repair and aortic root replacement groups, including in-hospital mortality (8.5% and 8.2%), new-onset renal failure requiring permanent dialysis, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival was 62% and 65%, and the 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 11% and 7% in the aortic root repair and aortic root replacement groups, respectively. The primary indication for root reoperation was aortic root aneurysm in the aortic root repair group and bioprosthetic valve deterioration in the aortic root replacement group.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic root repair and aortic root replacement are appropriate surgical options for acute type A aortic dissection repair with favorable short- and long-term outcomes. Aortic root replacement should be performed for patients with acute type A aortic dissection presenting with an intimal tear at the aortic root, root aneurysm 4.5 cm or greater, connective tissue disease, or unrepairable aortic valvulopathy.