Fate of the Preserved Sinuses of Valsalva After Emergency Repair for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

Aortic root repair in acute type A aortic dissection: Neomedia or no neomedia

OBJECTIVE

Neomedia has been frequently used for aortic root repair in acute type A aortic dissection. We aimed to determine the efficacy and necessity of neomedia during acute type A aortic dissection root repair.

METHODS

From January 2010 to February 2021, 308 patients with acute type A aortic dissection underwent aortic root repair with neomedia (n = 132) or without neomedia (n = 176). Of these, 121 matched pairs were identified using propensity score matching based on age, sex, coronary artery disease, preoperative renal failure, acute stroke, prior cardiac surgery, cardiogenic shock, coronary malperfusion, preoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and severe aortic insufficiency.

RESULTS

After matching, the preoperative demographics and comorbidities were well balanced in both groups. Compared with the neomedia group, the no neomedia group had less hemiarch (57% vs 69%, P = .05) and more zone 1 arch replacements (12% vs 4.1%, P = .03), shorter hypothermic circulatory arrest time (28 vs 36 minutes, P < .001), and shorter crossclamp time (120 vs 131 minutes, P = .02). Postoperative outcomes were similar, and the odds ratio by univariable logistic model of no neomedia for operative mortality was 0.83 (P = .76). Aortic root growth over 11 years (0.11 vs 0.16 mm/year, P = .66), 5-year freedom from greater than mild aortic insufficiency (84% vs 85%, P = .80), reoperation for root pathology (1 patient in each group), and 8-year survival (80% [95% confidence interval, 69-97] vs 71% [95% confidence interval, 55-82], P = .26) were similar between the neomedia and no neomedia groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute type A aortic dissection, aortic root repair with or without neomedia was equally safe and effective. Neomedia use could be avoided in acute type A aortic dissection repair.

Aortic root remodeling after surgical repair of acute type A aortic dissection using different anastomosis techniques

Background

After surgical repair of acute type A aortic dissection (aTAAD), remodeling of the residual aortic segments is the key outcome parameter associated with late reoperation or aorta-related adverse events. In this study, we analyzed the surgical outcomes of aTAAD using either a telescopic or continuous anastomosis technique, focusing on their impact on aortic root remodeling during the longitudinal follow-up.

Methods

Between 2012 and 2018, 112 surgical repairs of aTAAD with ascending aorta replacement and without aortic arch or aortic root replacement were performed. The medical records were reviewed retrospectively, and early and late outcomes were compared between the telescopic and continuous anastomosis techniques. The generalized estimating equation method was used to analyze the effects of different anastomosis techniques on serial aortic root remodeling.

Results

The telescopic anastomosis technique was used in 46 cases (41.1%), and the conventional continuous anastomosis technique was used in 66 cases (58.9%). There were no differences in in-hospital mortality or the incidence of major complications between the groups. The telescopic anastomosis group demonstrated stable postoperative regression of the aortic root diameter during follow-up. In contrast, the continuous anastomosis group showed a progressive dilatation of the aortic root. There was a trend toward better aortic root adverse event-free survival rates in the telescopic anastomosis group (P = .081).

Conclusions

The telescopic anastomosis technique is a safe alternative to the continuous anastomosis technique in the surgical repair of aTAAD, with comparable early results. In addition, telescopic anastomosis was associated with beneficial aortic root remodeling in the medium term compared with continuous anastomosis.