Valve-Sparing Root Reconstruction Does Not Compromise Survival in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

Acute type A aortic syndromes: outcomes are independent of aortic root/valve management

Purpose

Clinical outcomes following various surgical intervention strategies for aortic root and valve pathology during repair of acute type A aortic syndromes were studied and compared.

Methods

From 2004 to 2019, 634 patients underwent acute type A aortic repair. Patients were divided into 4 groups: Valve Resuspension (n = 456), Isolated Valve Replacement (AVR) (n = 24), Valve and Root Replacement (ROOT) (n = 97), and Valve Sparing Root Replacement (VSRR) (n = 57). The primary endpoint was midterm survival and multivariable risk factor analysis was performed.

Results

The mean age was 55.4 ± 13 years, 424 (67%) were male, and overall early mortality was 12%. Early mortality was 13%, 8%, 11%, and 7% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.43. Five-year survival was 74%, 86%, 73%, and 84% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.46. There was no difference in late stroke, renal failure, heart block, and late bleeding (p > 0.05 for all). At late follow-up, AVR and ROOT patients had a higher mean gradient versus Valve Resuspension and VSRR patients, p < 0.0001. For the total cohort, risk factors for late mortality included preoperative peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio (HR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.4, p = 0.009) and preoperative dialysis (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-6.1, p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Mid-term survival following repair of acute type A aortic dissection is not independently associated with a specific type of aortic valve intervention. Native valve preservation leads to acceptable mid-term valve hemodynamics and should be the preferred therapy in this emergent clinical setting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01602-8.

Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement With Reimplantation vs Remodeling: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) with reimplantation vs remodeling in patients undergoing aortic root surgery remains a controversial subject.

METHODS

This study was a pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived data from comparative studies published by December 31, 2022.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising 3044 patients (1991 in the reimplantation group and 2018 in the remodeling group). Patients who underwent VSARR with remodeling had a higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; 95% CI, 1.16-2.03; P = .002, log-rank test P < .001). Landmark analysis (with 4 years as the landmark time point) demonstrated that survival was lower in patients who underwent VSARR with remodeling (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.43-3.24; P < .001) in the first 4 years. Beyond the 4-year time point, no difference in survival was observed (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.50; P = .822). The risk for need of aortic valve and/or root reintervention was higher in patients undergoing VSARR with remodeling (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.07-2.07; P = .019, log-rank test P < .001). We did not find statistically significant coefficients for the covariates of age, female sex, connective tissue disorders, bicuspid aortic valve, aortic dissection, coronary bypass surgery, total arch replacement, or annular stabilization, which means that these covariates did not modulate the effects observed in our pooled analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

VSARR with reimplantation is associated with better overall survival and lower risk of need for reintervention over time compared with VSARR with remodeling. Regarding overall survival, we observed a time-varying effect that favored the reimplantation technique up to 4 years of follow-up, but not beyond this time point.

Long-term outcomes of valve-sparing root versus composite valve graft replacement for acute type A aortic dissection: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) versus composite aortic valve graft replacement (CAVGR) in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissections (ATAAD).

METHODS

We performed a pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data from studies with longer follow-up beyond the immediate postoperative period.

RESULTS

Seven studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising a total of 858 patients (367 patients in the VSARR groups and 491 patients in the CAVGR group). We found no statistically significant differences in the overall survival between the groups over time (HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.63-1.10, P = 0.192), but we observed a higher risk of reoperation in the VSARR group when compared with the CAVGR group (HR 9.99, 95% CI 2.23-44.73, P = 0.003). The meta-regression revealed statistically significant positive coefficients for age (P < 0.001) in the analysis of survival, which means that this covariate has a modulating effect on this outcome. The higher the mean age, the higher the HR for overall mortality was found to be with VSARR as compared with CAVGR. Other covariates such as female sex, hypertension, diabetes, connective tissue disorders, bicuspid aortic valve, hemiarch and/or total arch replacement, concomitant coronary bypass surgery did not seem to have any effect on the outcomes.

CONCLUSION

VSARR did not confer a better (or worse) survival over time in patients with ATAAD, but it was associated with higher risk of reoperations in the long run.

Current controversies in aortic valve-preserving surgery

The clinical outcome of severe aortic regurgitation (AR) remains suboptimal, but surgery has been shown to have survival benefit over medical therapy. Postoperative survival is inferior in patients with reduced left ventricular function, and therefore early surgical intervention is recommended. Aortic valvuloplasty (AVP) is an attractive option to avoid the major drawbacks of prosthetic valves but has not been widely adopted. The etiology of AR is classified functionally into three groups: normal leaflet motion (type I), cusp prolapse (type II), and restriction (type III). Type I with dilatation of the sinus of Valsalva (type Ib) can be repaired by aortic valve reimplantation or aortic root remodeling with similar valve stability. Type I with dilatation of the aortic annulus (type Ic) can be managed by annuloplasty. Type II can be corrected by plication or resuspension techniques. Pericardial patch is necessary in AVP for type Id (perforation/fenestration) and type III but is associated with risk of recurrence. Bicuspid aortic valve is classified according to commissure angle: symmetrical, asymmetrical, and very asymmetrical. Tricuspidization is recommended for repair of very asymmetrical valves to avoid postoperative stenosis. Recent progress has achieved similar reoperation rates between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve repair. For Marfan syndrome, valve-sparing root replacement is advantageous compared to Bentall operation regarding late survival, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events, and endocarditis. Similar findings have been reported in acute aortic dissection. Both remodeling and reimplantation procedures provide similar favorable outcomes in these settings. Recent advances in AVP are summarized by quantitative assessment of cusp configuration (effective height and geometric height), graft size decision, use of template to cut the graft, and videoscopic assessment of post-repair cusp configuration. Due to these advances, AVP shows superior results to replacement surgery. Further concrete evidence with larger case volumes and longer observation periods are necessary to popularize AVP.

Florida sleeve is a safe and effective technique for valve salvage in acute stanford type A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

Valve-sparing root replacement is commonly used for management of aortic root aneurysms in elective setting, but its technical complexity hinders its broader adoption for acute type-A aortic dissection (ATAAD). The Florida sleeve (FS) procedure is a simplified form of valve sparing aortic root reconstruction that does not require coronary reimplantation. Here, we present our outcomes of the FS repair in patients with dilated roots in the setting of an ATAAD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 24 consecutive patients (2002-2018) treated with FS procedure for ATAAD. Demographic, operative, and postoperative outcomes were queried from our institutional database. Long term follow-up was obtained from clinic visits for local patients, and with telephone and telehealth measures otherwise.

RESULTS

Mean age was 49 ± 14 years with 19 (79%) males. Marfan syndrome was present in 4 (16.7%) patients and 14 (58.3) had ≥2+ aortic insufficiency (AI). Nine (37.2%) had preoperative mal-perfusion or shock. The FS was combined with hemi-arch replacement in 15 (62.5%) patients and a zone-2 arch replacement in 9 (37.5%) patients. There were 2 (8.3%) early postoperative mortalities. Median follow-up period was 46 months (range, 0.3-146). The median survival of the entire cohort was 143.4 months. One patient (4.2%) required redo aortic valve replacement for unrelated aortic valve endocarditis at 30 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

FS is simplified and reproducible valve-sparing root repair. In appropriate patients, it can be applied safely in acute Stanford type-A aortic dissection with excellent early and long-term results.

Preservation of the Aortic Root During Type A Aortic Dissection Surgery: An Effective Strategy?

Background  Management of the aortic root during acute Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair remains controversial in term of long-term evolution and reoperation. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term outcomes of the aortic root after conservative management during primary surgery.

Methods  One hundred sixty-four consecutive patients were included in this monocentric retrospective study. The primary endpoint was reoperation on the aortic root during long-term follow-up. Forty-six patients had aortic root replacement (ARR) and 118 had supracoronary aortic replacement (SCR). The 10-year survival, occurrence of significant aortic regurgitation, and radiologic aortic root dilatation in each group were assessed during follow-up.

Results  Patients from ARR group were younger than those from SCR group ( p  < 0.0001). Median follow-ups of ARR group and SCR group are 4.4 (interquartile range [IR]: 2.6–8.3) and 6.15 (IR: 2.8–10.53) years, respectively. Reoperation of the aortic root during long-term follow-up was similar in both groups (ARR group: 5.1%, SCR group: 3.3%, p  = 0.636). The 10-year survivals of ARR and SCR groups were 64.8 ± 12.3% and 46.3 ± 5.8% ( p  = 0.012), respectively. Long-term significant aortic regurgitation occurred in one patient (1.7%) and seven patients (7.6%) of the ARR and SCR groups ( p  = 0.176), respectively. Radiologic aortic root diameters in the SCR group were similar between postoperative period and follow-up studies ( p  = 0.58). Reoperation on the distal aorta ( p  = 0.012) and patent radiologic false lumen of the descending aorta ( p  = 0.043) were independent risk factors of late death.

Conclusion  SCR is an effective technique for primary TAAD surgery and does not increase the rate of late reoperation on the aortic root.

In patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement, is reimplantation superior to remodelling?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: in patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement, is reimplantation superior to remodelling? The purpose of this best evidence topic was to re-review the updated evidence that has become available in the near decade since the previous review published in 2011. Altogether more than 300 papers were found using the reported search, of which 8 papers represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The included studies have significant limitations relating to low-level evidence study design, variable outcome collection and limited significance testing with direct comparison. Long-term outcomes such as survival, recurrence of aortic regurgitation and valve reintervention were largely equal between the two procedures across the studies. This review, updated from the previous best evidence topic, continues to suggest that there are no clear recommendations or even consensus to guide clinical decision-making when choosing between remodelling or reimplantation approaches to valve-sparing aortic root replacement. To date, no study provides strong clinical benefit to favour either procedure in terms of perioperative outcomes, medium-long term survival or reintervention of the aortic valve. As such, procedure selection should be based upon patient factors and valve evaluation, combined with surgeon preference and experience.

Comparative outcomes of total arch versus hemiarch repair in acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection: the impact of 21 years of experience

OBJECTIVES

With the goal of evaluating the impact of experiences at our centre on comparative outcomes between total arch and hemiarch repairs, we reviewed our 21 years of experience with operations for acute type I aortic dissection.

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2019, a total of 365 patients (177 women; 56.8 ± 12.9 years) with acute type I aortic dissection who had a hemiarch (n = 248) or a total arch replacement (n = 117) were evaluated, and the trends in comparative outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

Over time, deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and retrograde cerebral perfusion were replaced by moderate hypothermia and antegrade cerebral perfusion with the introduction of dedicated aortic surgeons. Overall, operative deaths decreased from 11.0% in time quartile 1 to 2.2% in time quartile 4 (P = 0.090). After adjustment with the use of inverse probability weighting, the total arch group compared with the hemiarch group was at a similar risk of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-2.43; P = 0.71] but at a greater risk of neurological deficit (OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.23-8.98; P = 0.017) in the earlier half period (1999-2009). In the later period (2009-2019), however, both the risks of mortality (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03-1.59; P = 0.23) and of neurological injuries (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.12-1.18; P = 0.13) were comparable between the 2 groups (P for interaction in terms of neurological deficit = 0.007). The multivariable logistic regression model revealed that dedicated aortic surgeons independently contributed to decreased risk of death (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-0.84; P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that accumulating institutional experiences, along with resultant improvements in surgical strategies and outcomes, may neutralize the surgical risk gap between total arch and hemiarch repair in acute type I aortic dissection.

Aortic Root Remodeling in Acute Aortic Dissection

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term results of remodeling in acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) to define operative risk and root and valve stability.

METHODS

Between October 1995 and December 2018, a total of 352 patients were treated surgically for AADA. Of these, 90 patients with AADA (<2 weeks from onset; age: 57 ± 15 years; 70 males) with a root diameter of >43 to 45 mm (depending on patient size) (48 ± 4.1 mm) underwent aortic root remodeling and were analyzed further. As the control group, we chose the patients with normally sized aortic roots who had been treated by tubular replacement only (n = 227). Other procedures were performed in 35 cases.

RESULTS

Early mortality was 9% in the remodeling group versus 15% in the tubular ascending aortic replacement (TAR). Actuarial survival at 10 and 15 years was 68 ± 5% and 58.3 ± 6.4%, respectively, in the root remodeling group versus 68 ± 4% and 66 ± 4% in the TAR group (p = 0.99). Freedom from reoperation on the aortic valve or root was 95 ± 3% at 10 years and at 89 ± 6% at 15 years. Freedom from proximal reoperation after TAR at 10 and 15 years was 93 ± 3% and 91 ± 3% (n = 31 patients at risk), respectively, not statistically different from that after remodeling (p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term stability of aortic root remodeling for enlarged roots with AADA was comparable to TAR preserving a normal aortic root.

Modified selective aortic root reconstruction with valve repair for treatment of Stanford A aortic dissection

Background

Acute aortic dissection is a serious emergency with a significant impact on mortality and morbidity. Many patients present with hemodynamic instability that may prevent them from being transported to more experienced centers. We aim to present our experience with a modified limited root approach in terms of the operative details and early results.

Results

This retrospective study included 27 patients who presented with Stanford A aortic dissection and underwent modified selective root replacement. All patients were followed up using transthoracic echocardiography at 6 months postoperatively and at yearly intervals thereafter. Computed tomography (CT) angiography was performed 12 months after the initial surgery.

A total of 92.6% of patients required concomitant aortic valve repair. There was no operative mortality related to the operation itself; however, four patients died during the follow-up period. One patient developed new severe aortic regurgitation in the 6th month of follow-up. One patient developed a pseudoaneurysm related to the suture line that was diagnosed by CT angiography in the 16th month of follow-up.

Conclusions

The early results of modified selective root reconstruction with aortic valve repair are promising. This procedure is a quick, reliable, easily reproducible, and technically undemanding valve-sparing treatment for acute aortic root dissection.

Outcomes in techniques of valve sparing aortic root replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling in patients undergoing valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) surgery.

METHOD

Electronic database search at PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Ovid, and Google scholar was performed from inception to January 2020. Primary outcomes were aortic valve (AV) reintervention and postoperative grade of aortic insufficiency (AI) while secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, reoperation for bleeding, and operative times.

RESULTS

A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1283 patients had reimplantation while 1150 had remodeling. No difference in preoperative demographics was noted except reimplantation patients were younger (48 ± 16 vs. 56 ± 15 years; p < .00001). The cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were shorter in the remodeling cohort (168 ± 38 vs. 150 ± 37 min; p = .0001 and 133 ± 31 vs. 112 ± 30 min; p = .0002, respectively). No difference in concomitant total arch surgery (14% in reimplantation vs. 15% in remodeling; p = .53). Postoperatively, there were similar stroke rates (3% in both cohorts; p = .54), rates of reoperation for bleeding (9% in reimplantation vs. 12% in remodeling; p = .88), and 30-day mortality (3% in reimplantation vs. 4% in remodeling; p = .96). No difference in early AV reintervention (1% in reimplantation vs. 2% in remodeling; p = .07), and late AV reintervention (4% in reimplantation vs. 7% in remodeling; p = .07). The AI of +2 grade was significantly lower in the reimplantation cohort (5% vs. 8%; p = .01).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows comparable clinical outcomes between both techniques. The practice of each technique is largely center and surgeon dependent. Larger sample size cohorts with minimal confounding factors are required to confirm the above findings.

Reimplantation versus remodeling in valve-sparing surgery for aortic root aneurysms: a meta-analysis

Background

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR), which includes reimplantation and remodeling techniques, has been developed as an important treatment for aortic root aneurysms. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of reimplantation versus remodeling techniques in valve-sparing surgery for aortic root aneurysms.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library until November 2019. Fourteen retrospective cohort studies comparing reimplantation with remodeling techniques for aortic root aneurysms were included and contained at least one of the following outcomes: early mortality, late mortality, aortic valve-related reoperation, and postoperative moderate to severe aortic regurgitation (AR).

Results

The outcomes of 1,672 patients (1,011 underwent reimplantation surgery, and 661 underwent remodeling) were analyzed. Compared with remodeling, the reimplantation technique was associated with a significantly lower risk of late mortality (RR =0.34; 95% CI, 0.17–0.71; P=0.004; I²=37%) and reoperation (RR =0.31; 95% CI, 0.12–0.76; P=0.01; I²=55%). There was no significant difference in early mortality (RR =0.69; 95% CI, 0.31–1.53; P=0.36; I²=0%), postoperative moderate to severe AR (RR =0.64; 95% CI, 0.31–1.32; P=0.22; I²=36%) or postoperative stroke (RR =1.26; 95% CI, 0.58–2.75; P=0.56; I²=0%) between the two groups. No evidence of publication bias was detected.

Conclusions

The current meta-analysis indicate that patients who undergo reimplantation procedures have a significantly lower risk of late mortality and reoperation than those who undergo remodeling procedures. Early mortality, postoperative moderate to severe AR and stroke were comparable between the two techniques.

Factors Affecting Outcomes in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review

Acute type A aortic dissection is a clinical emergency and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates if not managed promptly in specialised and high-volume centres. The mortality rate is increased by 1% for each hour delay in management; however, with advancement in clinical practice, diagnostic imaging and clinician awareness, this has been dramatically reduced to below 30% in most international centres. Not only timing of recognition of the pathology, but also other factors can significantly affect outcomes of such critical pathology. This includes, but is not limited to, age, extent of the pathology, existence of connective tissue disorders, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and surgeon experience. This narrative review will focus on current clinical practice and the evidence behind optimising each factor to minimise adverse outcomes in such high-risk cohort.

Contemporary Surgical Strategies for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

Surgical techniques and organ protection strategies for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) have evolved considerably over the years. Nonetheless, open surgical repair remains a complex procedure, and there is a lack of consensus regarding many aspects of repair. In patients with dissection limited to the ascending aorta (DeBakey type II), repair typically involves replacement of only the affected segment, barring substantial aortic dilation to address elsewhere. In contrast, most patients with ATAAD have dissection extending into the thoracoabdominal aorta (DeBakey type I); in these cases, consideration must be given as to how much of the aortic arch and distal aorta to incorporate into the index repair, and several open and hybrid options exist. Herein, we review contemporary surgical strategies for ATAAD and clarify specific areas of controversy, in an effort to elucidate the optimal operative approach. In general, a limited index repair aimed at ensuring operative survival is typically the best option, whereas extended repair should be reserved for carefully selected patients who are most likely to benefit.

The fate of aortic root and aortic regurgitation after supracoronary ascending aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fate of the preserved aortic root after supracoronary aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

Between October 1999 and March 2018, 339 patients underwent supracoronary aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection at our institution. Late outcomes were evaluated, including overall survival, aortic-related death, and aortic root-related reoperation. The median follow-up was 3.7 years (1.4-8.4 years).

RESULTS

Operative mortality was 46 patients (13.6%). The cumulative incidences at 5 years for aortic root-related reoperation, aortic-related death, and non-aortic related death were 2.5%, 14.5% and 12.4%, respectively. Multivariable Cox hazard regression analysis demonstrated greater sinus of Valsalva diameter and number of commissural detachments to be significant risk factors for a composite outcome consisting of aortic-related death or aortic root-related reoperation. Mixed-effects regression demonstrated that sinus of Valsalva diameter significantly increased with time (P < .001), and aortic regurgitation significantly worsened (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Sinus of Valsalva diameter and commissural detachment were independent predictors of unfavorable outcomes after supracoronary aortic replacement. Close follow-up is particularly necessary for these patients, and aortic root replacement at the time of initial operation may lead to more favorable late outcomes.

David aortic valve-sparing reimplantation versus biological aortic root replacement: a retrospective analysis of 411 patients

Objectives

This study aimed to compare short- and long-term results for patients undergoing either aortic valve-sparing reimplantation (David) procedure (AVr-D) or biological aortic root replacement (Bentall) procedure (ARr-B-bio) for aortic root pathology.

Methods

We compared outcomes for patients who underwent AVr-D (n = 261) or ARr-B-bio (n = 150) between 2000 and 2015 at our institution. The mean age of patients was 55 ± 13 years and 21.7% (n = 89) were female. ARr-B-bio patients were significantly older than AVr-D patients (58 ± 10 vs 53 ± 15 years, p < 0.001) and had a significantly lower incidence of connective tissue disorders (2.0% vs 16.9%, p < 0.001). Follow-up was complete in 88% of patients.

Results

Mortality at 30 days was 1.2% (n = 5) overall, at 0.4% (n = 1) significantly lower in the AVr-D group compared with 2.7% (n = 4) in the ARr-B-bio group (p = 0.04). Postoperative low cardiac output was more common in ARr-B-bio patients (n = 4) versus AVr-D patients (n = 0; p = 0.008). The occurrence of postoperative strokes was 2.2% (n = 9) in both groups, without significant differences (p = 0.84). Five- and ten-year survival was 93.7 ± 1.8% and 84.4 ± 4.7% in patients who received AVr-D and 90.9 ± 2.6% and 84.6 ± 5.4% for ARr-B-bio patients (log-rank p = 0.37). Using Cox regression analysis, age (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02-1.10, p = 0.002), smoking (HR 2.74; 95% CI 1.28-5.86, p = 0.01), and emergency surgery (HR 6.58; 95% CI 1.69-25.54, p = 0.007) were found to be independent predictors of long-term mortality.There was no difference in freedom from reoperation between AVr-D (89.4 ± 3.4% at 10 years) and ARr-B-bio (80.4 ± 7.5% at 10 years, log-rank p = 0.66) patients, nor for freedom from stroke, bleeding, myocardial infarction, or endocarditis during follow-up.

Conclusions

Short-term outcomes for both AVr-D and ARr-B-bio are excellent in patients with aortic root pathology. The long-term outcomes were associated with comparable survival and freedom from reoperation. AVr-D may be preferable to ARr-B-bio in patients with suitable pathoanatomy.

Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement as First-Choice Strategy in Acute Type a Aortic Dissection

Background: Although, in theory, valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) is an ideal surgical option for acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) it is usually not regarded as the first-choice treatment due to the emergency setting and the relative complexity of the procedure. Here, we report the results of a consecutive, single-surgeon series of 45 AADA patients with the David procedure as first-choice treatment strategy. Methods and Results: Between September 2009 and July 2013 a total of 49 patients with AADA were consecutively operated by the same surgeon at our institution. The David procedure was the treatment of choice for the proximal aorta unless aortic valve pathology or critical preoperative patient status advocated against it. Median follow-up was 5.0 years (CI95%, 4.0-6.0). Out of the 45 patients included in this study the David procedure was performed in 28 patients (62.2%), while in 17 patients (37.8%) an alternative surgical strategy had to be pursued. Although X-clamping (168.5 ± 41.7 vs. 110.3 ± 51.1 min; p = 0.001), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (245.0 ± 62.4 vs. 211.8 ± 123 min; p = 0.029) and total operation time (383.8 ± 88.5 vs. 312.8 ± 144.8; p = 0.047) were significantly longer in the David-group as compared to the non-David group, there was no difference in major complication rate as well as 30-day (17.9 vs. 23.5%; p = 0.645) and 5-year mortality (28.6 vs. 35.3%) between groups. Conclusions: This small series indicates that the David procedure may be safe and feasible as a primary surgical treatment strategy for AADA.

Replacing the ascending aorta in the elderly: do or do not

Advanced age is a proven independent factor for perioperative morbidity and mortality in all forms of aortic surgery and forms an important variable in most available risk scores. Improvements in selection and perioperative management of high-risk elderly cohorts have reduced the incidence of adverse outcomes. Concerns remain however in the surgical and anesthesiology community that exposing elderly frail patients to ascending aortic surgery is associated with significant risk. As with many clinical scenarios, individualization of care for each patient is of paramount importance. With advances in our understanding of perioperative and intraoperative care, age should no longer be considered in isolation as a contraindication to ascending aortic surgery.

Early and long-term results of aortic valve sparing aortic root reimplantation surgery for bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves

Introduction:

To evaluate early and long-term clinical outcomes following aortic valve sparing aortic root reimplantation surgery in patients with leaking bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves.

Methods:

The study consisted of 92 consecutive adult patients (tricuspid aortic valve group = 63 and bicuspid aortic valve group = 29) who underwent aortic valve sparing aortic root reimplantation surgery with or without aortic cusp repair for dilatation of the aortic root and/or aortic valve regurgitation at our institution from April 2004 to October 2016. Clinical outcomes were investigated using Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests between groups.

Results:

The follow-up was 100% complete with a mean time of 5.3 ± 3.3 years. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was 3.1% in tricuspid aortic valve group and 3.4% in bicuspid aortic valve group patients. The overall survival rates at 10 years did not differ between bicuspid aortic valve and tricuspid aortic valve patient groups (96.6 ± 3.3% vs. 90.3 ± 4.2%, p = 0.3). Freedom from recurrent aortic valve regurgitation (>2+) at 10 years was 90.5 ± 4.1% in tricuspid aortic valve group and 75.7 ± 8.7% in bicuspid aortic valve group (p = 0.06). Freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 10 years was 100% in tricuspid aortic valve group and 83.9 ± 7.4% in bicuspid aortic valve group (p = 0.002).

Conclusion:

Aortic valve sparing aortic root reimplantation surgery is a safe and efficient technique, providing acceptable long-term survival with low rates of valve-related complications in both tricuspid aortic valve and bicuspid aortic valve patient groups. However, aortic valve reoperation rates at 10 years follow-up were higher in bicuspid aortic valve group patients compared to tricuspid aortic valve group patients.

Durability and safety of David V valve-sparing root replacement in acute type A aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is an attractive option in type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair for a young patient with normal cusp anatomy, but conventional root replacement using a composite valved-conduit (ROOT) remains the gold standard in this emergent clinical setting. We examine the long-term safety and durability of the David V VSRR compared with ROOT in TAAD repair.

METHODS

From March 2004 to April 2017, 136 patients underwent repair of acute TAAD using either ROOT (n = 77; 56.6%) or VSRR (n = 59; 43.4%). Annual echocardiograms were performed for follow-up in VSRR patients. Univariable regression, Kaplan-Meier, and competing risk analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups, except that VSRR patients were younger (mean age 43.5 ± 11.4 years VSRR vs 50.4 ± 3.0 years ROOT; P = .001). Both groups had similar rates of preoperative malperfusion or shock (29.3% VSRR vs 37.0% ROOT; P = .35) and ≥3+ aortic insufficiency (63% VSRR vs 76.8% ROOT). Thirty-day mortality in the VSRR group was 2/59 (3.4%) and 11/77 in the ROOT group (14.3%; P < .001). All-cause survival at 9 years was 92% (VSRR) and 59% (ROOT; P = .002). The incidence of aortic reintervention was similar between groups (20%-23% at 5 years; P = .81). At 9 years of follow-up, 5/52 (9.6%) VSRR patients had ≥2+ aortic insufficiency, and 1 patient required valve reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In highly-selected patients, the David V VSRR provides a safe repair of acute TAAD with concomitant root pathology and valve insufficiency. In our center, the incidence of valve-related reintervention at long-term follow-up is low after emergent repair.

Long-Term Outcome of Aortic Root Remodeling for Patients With and Without Acute Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

Valve-preserving aortic surgery is increasingly used in acute aortic dissection type A (AADA). The object of this study was to compare the long-term results of aortic root remodeling (remodeling) for patients with and without AADA.Methods and Results:Between October 1995 and December 2013, 776 patients underwent valve-preserving root replacement, of whom 59 patients with AADA (<2 weeks from onset, 56±16 years, 48 male) underwent remodeling (the remodeling-group); 7 patients had bicuspid anatomy (12%), 3 had Marfan syndrome (5%), and 1 had undergone previous cardiac surgery (2%). For this analysis the control group of patients who underwent remodeling for stable aneurysm (n=59) was generated using a propensity score matching. The long-term outcomes regarding survival and reoperation on the aortic valve were compared between the 2 groups. Pre- and intraoperative patients' characteristics were comparable between groups. Early death was 7% in the AADA group and 3% in the control group (P=0.40). Actuarial survival at 10 years of the AADA group (72±6%) was insignificantly lower than that of the control group (83±5%) (P=0.16). Freedom from reoperation at 10 years was similar (AADA group: 98±2%, control group: 97±3%, P=0.99). Multivariable Cox's proportional hazards model could not identify an independent predictor for late reoperation but advanced age for late death.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term stability of remodeling was comparable between patients with and without AADA.

Comparison of outcomes of root replacement procedures and supracoronary techniques for surgical repair of acute aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Surgical approach to type A acute aortic dissection (AADA) is usually dictated by the presenting anatomy. We compared long-term outcomes of AADA repaired with a root replacement versus a supracoronary tube graft, regardless of the proximal extent of the intimal tear.

METHODS

A single-centre, retrospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing repair of AADA between December 1999 and March 2012 were stratified based on the proximal surgical procedure performed: supracoronary tube graft or root replacement. Imaging, chart reviews and clinical follow-ups were analyzed to identify the presenting anatomy and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

We included the cases of 75 patients in our analysis: 54 received a supracoronary tube graft and 21 received a root replacement. The proximal tear was identified below the sinotubular junction in all patients in the root group and in 61% of patients in the supracoronary group. We detected no differences between the groups for in-hospital mortality, length of stay, or complications. However, the root group had significantly increased renal failure (0% v. 9.5%, p = 0.018), cardiopulmonary bypass time (198.4 ± 80.0 min v. 316.5 ± 102.5 min, p < 0.001), cross-clamp time (91.6 ± 34.9 min v. 191.3 ± 52.8 min, p < 0.001), duration of surgery (457.5 ± 129.9 min v. 611.6 ± 197.8 min, p < 0.001), and platelet transfusions (8.1 ± 7.6 v. 12.8 ± 8.7 units, p = 0.021) than the supracoronary group. Long-term follow-up demonstrated a greater incidence of 2+ aortic regurgitation among patients in the supracoronary group than the root group (29.7% v. 0.0%, p = 0.006); however, there was no difference between the groups in symptoms or reoperation.

CONCLUSION

In AADA, aortic root replacement involves a longer procedure with increased risk of early renal impairment. Long-term follow-up identified significantly more aortic regurgitation and root dilation in the supracoronary group than the root group, with a trend toward worse long-term survival. However, we found no difference between the groups in mortality, reoperation or New York Heart Association class.

One-stage hybrid surgery for acute Stanford type A aortic dissection with David operation, aortic arch debranching, and endovascular graft: a case report

Acute Stanford type A aortic dissection requires an extremely complex surgical strategy and presents high risk of complications. Although many different procedures were reported to treat this aortic dissection, high mortality rate and incidences of complications still exist. This study presents a 59-year-old lady with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection, which originated from the aortic root to proximal part of right external iliac artery and involved the brachiocephalic trunk, left carotid artery, celiac trunk, and left renal artery. The patient underwent one-stage hybrid surgery of David procedures, debranching, and endovascular aortic repair under ultrasound-guided aortic arch cannulation cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The surgery was successfully performed, and the patient showed no post-operative complication. The one-staged hybrid surgery of David procedures, debranching, and endovascular aortic repair provides novel and well-designed combined techniques for treating complex acute Stanford type A aortic dissection. Our techniques significantly lowered the risks, thereby expanding the indications of surgical intervention for acute Stanford type A aortic dissection.

Techniques of Proximal Root Reconstruction and Outcomes Following Repair of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to compare the early and late outcomes of different techniques of proximal root reconstruction during the repair of acute Type A aortic dissection, including aortic valve (AV) resuspension, aortic valve replacement (AVR), and a root replacement procedure.

METHODS

All patients who underwent acute Type A aortic dissection repair between January 2000 and October 2010 at four academic institutions were compiled from each institution's Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. This included 189 patients who underwent a concomitant aortic valve (AV) procedure; 111, 21, and 57 patients underwent AV resuspension, AVR, and the Bentall procedure, respectively. The median age of patients undergoing a root replacement procedure was significantly younger than the other two groups. Early clinical outcomes and 10-year actuarial survival rates were compared. Trends in outcomes and surgical techniques throughout the duration of the study were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The operative mortality rates were 17%, 29%, and 18%, for AV resuspension, AVR, and root replacement, respectively. Operative mortality (p = 0.459) was comparable between groups. Hemorrhage related re-exploration did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.182); however, root replacement procedures tended to have decreased rates of bleeding when compared to AVR (p = 0.067). The 10-year actuarial survival rates for the AV resuspension, Bentall, and AVR groups were 72%, 56%, and 36%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The 10-year actuarial survival was significantly lower in those receiving AVR compared to those receiving root replacement procedures or AV resuspension. Operative mortality was comparable between the three groups.

Evolution of surgical therapy for Stanford acute type A aortic dissection

Acute type A aortic dissection (AcA-AoD) is a surgical emergency associated with very high morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, the early outcome of emergency surgical repair has not improved substantially over the last 20 years. Many of the same debates occur repeatedly regarding operative extent and optimal conduct of the operation. The question remains: are patients suffering from too large an operation or too small? The pendulum favoring routine aortic valve resuspension, when feasible, has swung towards frequent aortic root replacement. This already aggressive approach is now being challenged with the even more extensive valve-sparing aortic root replacement (V-SARR) in selected patients. Distally, open replacement of most of the transverse arch is best in most patients. The need for late aortic re-intervention has not been shown to be affected by more extensive distal operative procedures, but the contemporary enthusiasm for a distal frozen elephant trunk (FET) only seems to build. It must be remembered that the first and foremost goal of the operation is to have an operative survivor; additional measures to reduce late morbidity are secondary aspirations. With increasing experience, true contraindications to emergency surgical operation have dwindled, but patients with advanced age, multiple comorbidities, and major neurological deficits do not fare well. The endovascular revolution, moreover, has spawned innovative options for modern practice, including ascending stent graft and adaptations of the old flap fenestration technique. Despite the increasingly complex operations and ever expanding therapies, this life-threatening disease remains a stubborn challenge for all cardiovascular surgeons. Development of specialized thoracic aortic teams and regionalization of care for patients with AcA-AoD offers the most promise to improve overall results.

When and how to replace the aortic root in type A aortic dissection

Management of aortic root pathology during repair of acute type A aortic dissection (TAAD) requires a comprehensive evaluation of the patient's anatomy, demographics, comorbidities and physiologic status at the time of emergent operative intervention. Surgical options include conservative repair of the root (CRR) (with or without replacement of the aortic valve), replacement of the native valve and aortic root using a composite valve-conduit and valve sparing root replacement (VSRR). The primary objective of this review is to provide data for surgeons to aid in their decision-making process regarding management of the aortic root during repair of TAAD. No time or language restrictions were imposed and references of the selected studies were checked for additional relevant citations. Multiple retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent operative mortality between aortic root repair and replacement during TAAD. There is a higher incidence of aortic root reintervention with aortic root repair compared to aortic root replacement (ARR). Experienced, high-volume aortic centers have demonstrated the safety of VSRR in young, hemodynamically stable patients presenting with TAAD. In conclusion, aortic root repair can safely be performed in the vast majority of patients with TAAD. Despite the increased surgical complexity, ARR does not increase operative mortality and improves the freedom from root reintervention. VSRR can be performed in highly selected populations of patients with TAAD with durable mid-term valve function.