Survival and reoperation after valve-sparing root replacement and root repair in acute type A dissection

Preservation versus replacement of the aortic root for acute type A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of aortic root preservation versus aortic root replacement (ARR) after acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair.

METHODS

In this observational study of consecutive aortic surgeries between 2007 and 2021, patients with ATAAD were identified via a prospectively maintained institutional database and were stratified by root preservation versus ARR (including valve-sparing and complete ARR). Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Among the 601 patients underwent aortic arch reconstruction for ATAAD, 370 (61.6%) underwent root preservation and the other 231 (38.4%) underwent ARR, with a median follow-up of 6.3 years (interquartile range, 3.8-9.6 years). Cardiopulmonary bypass and ischemic times were longer in the ARR group, but intraoperative variables were otherwise similar between the groups, including cannulation strategy and extent of distal repair. There were no between-group differences in postoperative outcomes, including operative mortality, stroke, mechanical ventilation time, renal failure, reexploration for bleeding, and total length of stay. At a 1-year follow-up, the incidence of aortic regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar in the 2 groups. On multivariable Cox regression, ARR was not associated with improved long-term survival compared with root preservation (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56; P = .44). Late reinterventions on the aortic root or valve were similar in the 2 groups and was 2.0% for the overall cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that aortic root preservation may achieve similar midterm outcomes as ARR after ATAAD repair.

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.

Utility of structured follow-up imaging after aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Although postoperative follow-up after aortic surgery is recommended by guidelines, its clinical utility is not well documented. We hypothesized that structured follow-up imaging by an aortic program would improve outcomes. We then documented radiologic findings on asymptomatic postoperative imaging.

METHODS

All patients who survived to discharge after open thoracic aortic surgery between January 2017 and July 2021 were included, excluding endocarditis. Patients who followed at our center and received scheduled imaging were compared with patients who did not. Survival was analyzed by the method of Kaplan-Meier, and reintervention was assessed using the Fine-Gray subhazard function. Routine imaging was reviewed for aortic growth, pseudoaneurysm, and perigraft density.

RESULTS

After aortic surgery, the cumulative incidence of follow-up was 38.6% at 3 years postoperatively. Patients with follow-up were more likely to have a dissection and fewer comorbidities but were similar in regards to socioeconomic factors and distance to hospital. After matching and accounting for immortal time bias, patients with follow-up had a greater reintervention rate (26.0% vs 9.0%) with similar survival (98.7% vs 95.2%, P = .110) at 4 years. The cumulative incidence of pseudoaneurysm, significant perigraft density, and growth ≥3 mm/year on routine imaging was 49.7% at 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of structured follow-up imaging by an aortic program resulted in low clinical compliance. Follow-up was associated with increased rates of aortic reintervention. Clinically relevant radiologic findings were common on asymptomatic imaging and increased throughout 5-year follow-up rather than plateauing in the early postoperative period.

The mid-term outcomes of aortic-root repair is not inferior to Bentall procedure in acute type-A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

Bentall procedure used to be standard operation for involved aortic root in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). But aortic root repair for preserving valve is still controversial in ATAAD. This study aimed to evaluate the midterm outcomes of aortic root repair by comparing with Bentall approach.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 1075 ATAAD patients with aortic root involvement was conducted. The patients were divided into aortic root repair group (n = 447) and Bentall group (n = 628). The propensity score matching analysis (PSMA) was used to adjust the baseline.

RESULTS

The median follow-up was 44 months (interquartile range, 17-65 months; range, 1-130 months). The 30-day mortality in the repair and replacement groups was 15.0 % and 12.9 % (P = 0.327) respectively; the late overall mortality was 15.9 % and 14.0 % (P = 0.394) respectively. The Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival and free-from-reoperation was 86.0 % and 92.5 % respectively in the repair group. After PSMA, the cumulative survival rate [Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.685; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.457-1.027; P = 0.747]) and reoperation rate (HR 0.308; 95 % CI 0.070-1.355; P = 0.157) was not significantly higher in the repair group than in the Bentall group.

CONCLUSION

The mid-term outcome of aortic root repair is probably not inferior to Bentall procedure. Therefore, root repair is an alternative approach in ATAAD with the advantage of preserving native valve.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

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.

Lactate-Based Difference as a Determinant of Outcomes following Surgery for Type A Acute Aortic Dissection: A Multi-Centre Study

Type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) is a serious condition within the acute aortic syndromes that demands immediate treatment. Despite advancements in diagnostic and referral pathways, the survival rate post-surgery currently sits at almost 20%. Our objective was to pinpoint clinical indicators for mortality and morbidity, particularly raised arterial lactate as a key factor for negative outcomes.

METHODS

All patients referred to the three cardiovascular centres between January 2005 and December 2022 were included in the study. The inclusion criteria required the presence of a lesion involving the ascending aorta, symptoms within 7 days of surgery, and referral for primary surgical repair of TAAAD based on recommendations, with consideration for other concomitant major cardiac surgical procedures needed during TAAAD and retrograde extension of TAAAD. We conducted an analysis of both continuous and categorical variables and utilised predictive mean matching to fill in missing numeric features. For missing binary variables, we used logistic regression to impute values. We specifically targeted early postoperative mortality and employed LASSO regression to minimise potential collinearity of over-fitting variables and variables measured from the same patient.

RESULTS

A total of 633 patients were recruited for the study, out of which 449 patients had complete preoperative arterial lactate data. The average age of the patients was 64 years, and 304 patients were male (67.6%). The crude early postoperative mortality rate was 24.5% (110 out of 449 patients). The mortality rate did not show any significant difference when comparing conservative and extensive surgeries. However, malperfusion had a significant impact on mortality [48/131 (36.6%) vs. 62/318 (19.5%), p < 0.001]. Preoperative arterial lactates were significantly elevated in patients with malperfusion. The optimal prognostic threshold of arterial lactate for predicting early postoperative mortality in our cohort was ≥2.6 mmol/L.

CONCLUSION

The arterial lactate concentration in patients referred for TAAAD is an independent factor for both operative mortality and postoperative complications. In addition to mortality, patients with an upper arterial lactate cut-off of ≥2.6 mmol/L face significant risks of VA ECMO and the need for dialysis within the first 48 h after surgery. To improve recognition and facilitate rapid transfer and surgical treatment protocol, more diligent efforts are required in the management of malperfusion in TAAAD.

Surgical Strategy for the Repair of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Multicenter Study

Type A acute aortic dissection is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with prompt referral imaging and management to tertiary referral centers needed urgently. Surgery is usually needed emergently, but the choice of surgery often varies depending on the patient and the presentation. Staff and center expertise also play a major role in determining the surgical strategy employed. The aim of this study was to compare the early- and medium-term outcomes of patients undergoing a conservative approach extended only to the ascending aorta and the hemiarch to those of patients subjected to extensive surgery (total arch reconstruction and root replacement) across three European referral centers. A retrospective study was conducted across three sites between January 2008 and December 2021. In total, 601 patients were included within the study, of which 30% were female, and the median age was 64.4 years. The most common operation was ascending aorta replacement (n = 246, 40.9%). The aortic repair was extended proximally (i.e., root n = 105; 17.5%) and distally (i.e., arch n = 250; 41.6%). A more extensive approach, extending from the root to the arch, was employed in 24 patients (4.0%). Operative mortality occurred in 146 patients (24.3%), and the most common morbidity was stroke (75, 12.6%). An increased length of ICU admission was noted in the extensive surgery group, which comprised younger and more frequently male patients. No significant differences were noted in surgical mortality between patients managed with extensive surgery and those managed conservatively. However, age, arterial lactate levels, "intubated/sedated" status on arrival, and "emergency or salvage" status at presentation were independent predictors of mortality both within the index hospitalization and during the follow-up. The overall survival was similar between the groups.

Sex-Based Difference in Aortic Dissection Outcomes: A Multicenter Study

Background: Type A Acute Aortic Dissection (TAAAD) repair is a surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. Registry data have noted several sex-specific differences in presentation with TAAAD which may account for the differences in men and women undergoing surgery for this condition. Methods: A retrospective review of data from three departments of cardiac surgery (Centre Cardiologique du Nord, Henri-Mondor University Hospital, San Martino University Hospital, Genoa) between January 2005 and 31 December 2021 was conducted. Confounders were adjusted using doubly robust regression models, a combination of regression models with inverse probability treatment weighting by propensity score. Results: 633 patients were included in the study, of which 192 (30.3%) were women. Women were significantly older with reduced haemoglobin levels and pre-operative estimated glomerular filtration rate compared to men. Male patients were more likely to undergo aortic root replacement and partial or total arch repair. Operative mortality (OR 0.745, 95% CI: 0.491–1.130) and early postoperative neurological complication results were comparable between the groups. The adjusted survival curves using IPTW by propensity score confirmed the absence of a significant impact of gender on long-term survival (HR 0.883, 95% CI 0.561–1.198). In a subgroup analysis of women, preoperative levels of arterial lactate (OR 1.468, 95% CI: 1.133–1.901) and mesenteric ischemia after surgery (OR 32.742, 95% CI: 3.361–319.017) were significantly associated with increased operative mortality. Conclusions: The advancing age of female patients alongside raised preoperative level of arterial lactate may account for the increasing preponderance among surgeons to perform more conservative surgery compared to their younger male counterparts although postoperative survival was similar between the groups.

The Role of Multimodality Imaging Approach in Acute Aortic Syndromes: Diagnosis, Complications, and Clinical Management

Acute aortic syndromes are life-threatening conditions with high morbidity and mortality. The principal pathological feature is acute wall damage with possible evolution towards aortic rupture. Accurate and timely diagnosis is mandatory to avoid catastrophic consequences. Indeed, misdiagnosis with other conditions mimicking acute aortic syndromes is associated with premature death. In this view, cardiovascular imaging is necessary for the correct diagnosis and management. Echocardiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and aortography allow for diagnosis, guarantee immediate treatment, and detect associated complications. Multimodality imaging is essential in the diagnostic work-up to confirm or rule out acute aortic syndromes. The aim of this review is to highlight the contemporary evidence on the role of single cardiovascular imaging techniques and multimodality imaging in the diagnosis and management of acute aortic syndromes.

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.

How we repair acute type A dissection in Gangnam severance hospital

Total arch replacement for aortic dissection is traditionally associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. Here, we share our strategies for improving surgical outcomes such as Y incision, unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion, Teflon felt neo-media formation, and reinforcement of the anastomosis site.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

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.

Type A acute aortic dissection with ≥40-mm aortic root: results of conservative and replacement strategies at long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the long-term results of aortic root (AR) preservation and replacement in patients operated on for acute type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

Out of 302 patients discharged after repair of acute aortic dissection (1977-2019), 124 patients had an AR ≥40 mm, which was preserved in 84 (68%, group A) patients and replaced in 40 (32%, group B) patients. Group B patients were younger (mean age 57 ± 12 vs 62 ± 11 years, P = 0.07), with a mean AR of 47 vs 43 mm and ≥moderate aortic insufficiency in 65% vs 30%. Survival, causes of death and reoperations were analysed at mean follow-up of 9 ± 8 years (6 months to 40 years).

RESULTS

Actuarial survival of discharged patients at 5, 10 and 15 years was 97% (0.89-0.99), 78% (0.67-0.90) and 75% (0.64-0.88) in group A, and 85% (0.71-0.95), 62% (0.44-0.78) and 57% (0.39-0.76) in group B (log-rank test P = 0.2). Nine patients in group A (7 patients for aortic insufficiency and dilatation of the root and 2 patients for pseudoaneurysm) and 1 patient of group B (pseudoaneurysm of the right coronary button) required proximal reoperation without deaths. At 5, 10 and 15 years, the cumulative incidence of proximal aortic reoperations was 5%, 9% and 25% in group A, and 0%, 3% and 3% in group B (P = 0.02). At multivariable analysis AR >45 mm [hazard ratio (HR) 6.8, P = 0.026] and age (HR 0.9, P = 0.016) were independently associated with proximal reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

AR preservation in acute type A dissection showed acceptable long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, a more aggressive approach appears a valid option, especially in patients with AR diameter >45 mm.

A tailored strategy for repair of acute type A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

Innumerable surgical techniques are currently deployed for repairing acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). We analyzed our results using a conservative approach of root-sparing and hemiarch techniques in higher-risk patients and root and total arch replacement for lower-risk patients.

METHODS

We queried our aortic database for consecutive patients who underwent ATAAD repair. Patients who underwent conservative repair (group 1) were compared with those who underwent extensive repair (group 2) using univariable and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

From 1997 to 2019, 343 patients underwent ATAAD repair. Two hundred forty had conservative repair (root-sparing, hemiarch) whereas 103 had extensive repair (root replacement and/or total arch). Group 1 was older with more comorbidities such as hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, and renal dysfunction. Group 2 had more connective tissue disease (2.1% vs 12.6%; P < .01), aortic insufficiency, and longer intraoperative times. The incidence of individual postoperative complications was similar regardless of approach. A composite of major adverse events (operative mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, dialysis, or tracheostomy) was higher in the conservative group (15.1% vs 5.9%; P = .03). Operative mortality was 5.6% and not different between groups. Ten-year survival was similar with either surgical approach. Ten-year cumulative risk of reintervention was greater in group 2 (5.6% vs 21% at 10 years; P < .01). In multivariable analysis, ejection fraction and diabetes were predictors of major adverse events but not extensive approach. Extensive approach was a predictor of late reoperation (odds ratio, 3.03 [95% confidence interval, 1.29-7.2]; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

A tailored conservative approach to ATAAD leads to favorable operative outcomes without compromising durability.

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.

Surgical Outcomes of Stent-Related Type A Dissection Compared with Spontaneous Type A Dissection

Objective: Aortic endovascular stent implantation includes thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), hybrid aortic repair (HAR), and ascending aorta stent implantation (AASI). In this study, we compared the surgical outcomes of stent-related type A dissection (SRTAD) compared with spontaneous type A dissection (STAD).

Methods: From July 2011 to July 2014, we identified 17 SRTAD patients received surgical repair in our institution. Propensity score-matching was used to identify 34 STAD patients as controls.

Results: Preoperative data of SRTAD group and STAD group had no statistical difference. Selective cerebral perfusion (SCP) time was longer in SRTAD group than in STAD group (P <0.05). SRTAD group had a longer cross-clamp time compared with STAD group (P <0.05). No intraoperative deaths in two groups. No differences in CPB time and concomitant procedures between two groups. In-hospital mortality was 11.76% (2 of 17) in SRTAD group and 2.9% (1 of 34) in STAD group (P <0.05). No differences were found in intensive care unit (ICU) time, ventilation, paraparesis, and other postoperative complications between SRTAD and STAD groups. No difference was found in survival rate between SRTAD and STAD groups in the postoperative 1-year follow-up.

Conclusions: SRTAD patients received surgical repair had a higher in-hospital mortality compared with STAD, but no differences were found in postoperative complications and mid-term outcomes.

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.

Distal Stent Graft-Induced New Entry After TEVAR or FET: Insights Into a New Disease From EuREC

BACKGROUND

The study sought to learn about incidence and reasons for distal stent graft-induced new entry (dSINE) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) or after frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation, and develop prevention algorithms.

METHODS

In an analysis of an international multicenter registry (EuREC [European Registry of Endovascular Aortic Repair Complications] registry), we found 69 dSINE patients of 1430 (4.8%) TEVAR patients with type B aortic dissection and 6 dSINE patients of 100 (6%) patients after the FET procedure for aortic dissection with secondary morphological comparison.

RESULTS

The underlying aortic pathology was acute type B aortic dissection in 33 (44%) patients, subacute or chronic type B aortic dissection in 34 (45%) patients, acute type A aortic dissection in 3 patients and remaining dissection after type A repair in 3 (8%) patients, and acute type B intramural hematoma in 2 (3%) patients. dSINE occurred in 4.4% of patients in the acute setting and in 4.9% of patients in the subacute or chronic setting after TEVAR. After the FET procedure, dSINE occurred in 5.3% of patients in the acute setting and in 6.5% of patients in the chronic setting. The interval between TEVAR or FET and the diagnosis of dSINE was 489 ± 681 days. Follow-up after dSINE was 1340 ± 1151 days, and 4 (5%) patients developed recurrence of dSINE. Morphological analysis between patients after TEVAR with and without dSINE showed a smaller true lumen diameter, a more accentuated oval true lumen morphology, and a higher degree of stent graft oversizing in patients who developed dSINE.

CONCLUSIONS

dSINE after TEVAR or FET is not rare and occurs with similar incidence after acute and chronic aortic dissection (early and late). Avoiding oversizing in the acute and chronic settings as well as carefully selecting patients for TEVAR in postdissection aneurysmal formation will aid in reducing the incidence of dSINE to a minimum.

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

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) present with heterogeneous involvement of the aortic root complex. Despite this variation, the aortic root can usually be preserved the majority of the time by Teflon (WL Gore, Newark, DE) inlay patch reconstruction of the dissected sinuses of Valsalva (SOV). In this study, we report the long term anatomic, functional, and clinical outcomes associated with the preserved SOV after surgery for ATAAD.

METHODS

From 2002-2017, of 776 emergency ATAAD operations at a single institution, 558 (71.9%) underwent valve resuspension with SOV preservation. Echocardiography reports were reviewed to obtain postoperative SOV dimensions. Cumulative incidence of SOV dilation ≥ 4 5mm was calculated using the Fine-Gray method with death as a competing risk. Repeated-measures linear mixed effects model was used to determine risk factors for SOV growth over time.

RESULTS

During the follow-up period, 62 of 558 (11.1%) patients developed SOV diameter ≥ 45 mm. Cumulative incidence of SOV dilation ≥ 45 mm at 1, 5, and 10 years was 5.5%, 12.4%, and 18.9% respectively. In a multivariable Cox regression model, preoperative SOV diameter ≥ 45 mm was associated with a hazard ratio of 14.11 (95% confidence interval 7.03-31.62) for postoperative SOV dilation ≥ 45 mm. In a repeated-measures linear mixed effects model, preoperative and discharge SOV diameter were significant predictors of SOV dilation. Postoperative time course was also identified as significant indicating growth over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The preserved sinuses of Valsalva after surgery for ATAAD may be prone to progressive dilatation over time. Closer echocardiographic surveillance may be warranted in these patients.

Root reconstruction for proximal repair in acute type A aortic dissection

Background

Retrospective compared the results of root reconstruction and root replacement for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients and observed the rate of aortic insufficiency (AI) and aortic root dilation in the midterm follow-up period.

Methods

From 2008-2016, 427 ATAAD patients received surgical therapy in our center. There were 328 male and 99 female patients, aging from 22 to 83 years with a mean age of (51.1±12.5) years. These patients were divided into two major groups: 298 cases with root reinforcement reconstruction (Root Reconstruction), 129 cases with Bentall procedure (Root Replacement).

Results

The 30-day mortality was 7.7% (33/427), while no difference between the 2 procedures (8.1% and 7.0%, P=0.844). Cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and circulatory arrest times of all the patients were 252.5±78.1, 173.6±68.9, 30.7±9.5 minutes, respectively. In the average follow-up time of (34.5±26.1) months, midterm survival rates were similar between the 2 procedures (86.2% and 86.0%, P=0.957). Only one patient received redo Bentall procedure because of severe aortic regurgitation and dilated aortic root (50 mm) in the Root Reconstruction Group.

Conclusions

The indication of root management of ATAAD is based on the diameter of aortic root, structure of aortic root, and the dissection involvement. For most ATAAD patients, aortic root reinforcement reconstruction is a feasible and safe method.