Hemostatic Properties of Aortic Root Preservation versus Root Replacement for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Pooled Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed the available literature on patients undergoing aortic repair for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) with either aortic root preservation (RP) or root replacement (RR).

METHODS

Original research studies that evaluated short- and mid-term hemostatic properties of RP versus RR groups were identified, from 2000 to 2024. Intraoperative transfusions of red blood cells (RBCs), reoperation for bleeding, strategy of hemostatic sealing of the anastomosis in root repair following the reapproximation of the dissected layers of the aortic wall (with/without biological glue), and operative mortality were the primary endpoints. Postoperative morbidity and overall and reoperation-free survival at one and five years were the secondary endpoints. A sensitivity analysis was performed using the leave-one-out method.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis, incorporating data from 6850 patients (RP: 4389 patients; RR: 2461 patients). Root preservation demonstrated a lower median transfusion of RBCs (WMD: -1.00; 95% CI: -1.41, -0.59; p < 0.01) and incidence of reoperation for bleeding compared to root replacement (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.77; p < 0.01). The majority of studies did not use biological glue in root repair to avoid the risk of an anastomotic pseudoaneurysm. No difference was found regarding postoperative morbidity, along with mid-term overall and reoperation-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Root preservation without the use of biological glue during aortic repair is associated with enhanced hemostatic traits compared to the root replacement approach. A future well-designed Randomized Controlled Trial should further validate our outcomes.

Indications and outcomes of second aortic procedures after acute type A dissection repair

OBJECTIVES

Aortic arch or aortic root replacement is not performed in all cases of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAD), and a second aortic procedure will become necessary over time for some patients. Indications and outcomes, of second aortic procedures have not been studied extensively.

METHODS

Characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of all patients undergoing surgical repair for type A acute aortic dissection were analysed and patients needing second aortic procedure during follow-up were identified. The latter group was divided in 2 subgroups: on-pump includes patients operated on using cardiopulmonary bypass and off-pump without cardiopulmonary bypass.

RESULTS

A total of 638 patients underwent surgery for ATAD; 8% required a second aortic procedure. The most frequent indication for the second aortic procedure was dehiscence of suture lines (44%), followed by arch dilatation (24%). In-hospital mortality was 12%. Isolated ascending aorta replacement at the first surgery was associated with higher incidence of second aortic procedure (P = 0.006). Most patients in the on-pump group underwent a proximal reoperation (75%), with a mortality rate of 14.2%. In-hospital mortality of patients in the off-pump group was 7.7%. Long-term survival analysis showed no difference between groups (P = 0,526), Off-pump patients have greater likelihood of a second intervention during follow-up (P  = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Extended aortic root surgery and customized aortic arch repair in ATAD could be reasonable to reduce the incidence and mortality of high-risk second aortic procedures.

Strategy for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection considering midterm results: a retrospective cohort study comparing ascending aortic replacement and total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk technique

BACKGROUND

Acute type A aortic dissection is treated with an emergency procedure that uses ascending aortic replacement (AAR). However, to avoid a residual dissected aorta with a false lumen, total arch replacement (TAR) is required. The frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique is a promising surgical approach that promotes false lumen obliteration in a single step. Therefore, this retrospective single-center study aimed to evaluate the operative outcomes of AAR and TAR with FET.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2021, 143 patients with acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection underwent a central repair using AAR (n = 95) or TAR with FET (n = 43). All perioperative variables, the duration of all-cause mortality, and aortic events defined as dilatation of the distal aorta > 5 cm, new occurrences of aortic dissection, distal aortic surgery, and distal aortic rupture were recorded. We compared these perioperative variables and mid-term results with an additional focus on distal aortic events.

RESULTS

Patient background data did not differ between the two groups. Perioperative results for the TAR with FET group vs the AAR group showed similar operative times (306 vs 298 min, P = 0.862), but the TAR group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass times (154 vs 179 min, P < 0.001). The freedom from all-cause death for the TAR vs AAR groups using the Kaplan-Meier method was 81.9% vs 85.4% and 78.0% vs 85.4% (P = 0.407) at 1 and 3 years, respectively. Freedom from aorta-related events was 90.6% vs 97.6% and 69.3% vs 87.0% (P = 0.034) at 1 and 3 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TAR with FET had comparable perioperative results to AAR in acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection and was considered a valuable method to avoid aorta-related events in the midterm.

The non to moderately dilated root in acute type A aortic dissection: outcomes of the PENN-BERN registry in young, non-syndromic patients

OBJECTIVES

There is an ongoing debate regarding whether patients benefit more from root replacement compared to a reconstruction of the sinuses of Valsalva in acute type A aortic dissection (aTAAD). In those with known or suspected connective tissue disorders, root replacement is considered appropriate. However, there are currently no diameter-based guidelines regarding the best approach in patients with minimally to moderately dilated root and no connective tissue disorders.

METHODS

From January 2005 to December 2022, a two-centre registry of aTAAD was created. Patients were included based on their age (≤60 years), the absence of root entry and dilatation >50 mm and the absence of syndromic hereditable aortic disease. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the proximal procedure, root reconstruction and root replacement. Propensity score pair matching was performed based on preoperative characteristics.

RESULTS

Cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years was slightly higher after root reconstruction 13% vs 3.9% in the matched group (P = 0.040). Survival at 10 years was not affected by the procedure independently of the matching 72.1% vs 71.4% (P = 0.2). Uni- and multivariate Cox regressions showed that a root diameter of >40 mm was associated with a hazard ratio of 7.7 (95% confidence interval 2.6-23) and 5.4 (7-17), respectively, for reoperation for aneurysm and pseudoaneurysm.

CONCLUSIONS

Rate of reoperation due to proximal pseudoaneurysm and aneurysm could be significantly reduced with a lower threshold of 40 mm to replace the aortic root in aTAAD than in elective cases.

Aortic Root Reinforcement Combined with Vascular Grafts Eversion and Built-in Procedure (XJ-Procedure) for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Current root reinforcement methods for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) risk the tearing of endothelial tissue by sutures. This study proposed a novel technique for aortic root reinforcement and evaluated its effectiveness.

METHODS

Patients who diagnosed with ATAAD and had mild to moderate aortic root involvement, combined with aortic arch involvement undergoing Sun's procedure in the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University from January 2020 to December 2021, were retrospectively enrolled. They were divided into two groups according to their surgical procedures of aortic root: continuous aortic root suture group (CARS group) and aortic root reinforcement combined with vascular grafts eversion and built-in procedure (XJ-procedure) group. The 30-day mortality rates and incidence of operation-related complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 183 patients, including 114 in the XJ-procedure group. The 30-day mortality rates were 7.2% in the CARS group and 6.9% in the XJ-procedure group (P = 1.000). The incidence of residual aortic root dissection in the XJ-procedure group was lower than that in the CARS group before discharge (1.8% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.028), at 3-month (0% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.002) and 6-month (0% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.007) follow-up. In the CARS group, the incidence of anastomotic pseudoaneurysm was 2.9%, 2.9%, and 2.9% compared with none in the XJ-procedure group before discharge, at 3 and 6 months. The XJ-procedure group also showed less chest tube drainage in the first 24-h after the surgery, with lower incidence of hemodialysis and sepsis during hospitalization. No differences were observed in the incidence of bleeding necessitating reoperation and severe aortic regurgitation between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The XJ-procedure did not increase 30-day mortality and effectively reduced the incidence of residual aortic root dissection during the 6-month follow-up. Subsequent studies with larger samples and prolonged follow-up are needed to evaluate it.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05751200. The video showed the partial process of the XJ-procedure in managing the aortic root in the ATAAD surgery. The vascular graft was folded outward about 15 mm, and the eversion was intermittently sutured to the full layers aortic wall using 2-0 pad polyester sutures. Then, the eversion of the graft and aortic wall were continuously sutured in one more turn using 3-0 polypropylene sutures. (XJ-procedure, aortic root reinforcement combined with vascular grafts eversion and built-in procedure; ATAAD, acute type A aortic dissection.). (MP4 297097 kb).

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.

Risk factors for early death after surgery in patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are many risk factors related to early death after surgery among patients with acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) that have been analyzed in previous studies, but no evidence-based study has been conducted to confirm these risk factors.

AIMS

The aims of this study were to investigate risk factors for early death after surgery in patients with ATAAD via systematic review and meta-analysis and assess evidence-based strategies for preventing adverse events.

METHODS

The protocol for this study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42022332772). The authors systematically searched PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines from database construction to May 2021. Studies that met the selection criteria were determined by two independent researchers, and the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were reported for the risk factors and were pooled using Stata 15.0.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies including 5510 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 10 risk factors were analyzed in this meta-analysis. The preoperative risk factors for early death after surgery in patients with ATAAD were age [(OR: 1.03, 95% CI (1.01, 1.06)], male sex [(OR: 1.43, 95% CI (1.06, 1.92)], shock [(OR: 1.91, 95% CI (1.06, 3.45)], malperfusion [(OR: 3.45, 95% CI (2.24, 5.31)] and cardiac tamponade [(OR: 3.89, 95% CI (1.17, 12.98)].

CONCLUSION

Patients with ATAAD who have an older age, male sex, shock, malperfusion and cardiac tamponade have a higher risk for early death after surgery. However, more highly homogenous studies are needed to demonstrate these results. Clinical staff should pay more attention to these factors and take individual actions to reduce mortality after surgery in patients with ATAAD.

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.

Outcomes of Reoperative Aortic Root Replacement After Previous Acute Type A Dissection Repair

Limited aortic root repair for acute type A dissection is associated with greater risk of proximal reoperations compared to full aortic root replacement. Surgical outcomes for patients undergoing reoperative root replacement after previous dissection repair are unknown. This study seeks to determine outcomes for these patients to further inform the debate surrounding optimal upfront management of the aortic root in acute dissection. Retrospective record review of all patients who underwent full aortic root replacement after a previous type A dissection repair operation at a tertiary academic referral center from 2004-2020 was performed. Among 57 cases of reoperative root replacement after type A repair, 35 cases included concomitant aortic arch replacements, and 21 cases involved coronary reconstruction (unilateral or bilateral modified Cabrol grafts). There were 3 acute postoperative strokes and 4 operative mortalities (composite 30-day and in-hospital deaths, 7.0%). Mid-term outcomes were equivalent for patients who required arch replacement compared to isolated proximal repairs (81.8% vs 80.6% estimated 5-year survival, median follow-up 5.53 years. Reoperative root replacement after index type A dissection repairs, including those with concomitant aortic arch replacement and/or coronary reconstruction is achievable with acceptable outcomes at an experienced aortic center.

Managing the Root in Acute Type A Aortic Dissections: Are We Ready for a Standardized Approach?

OBJECTIVES

 Surgical repair of Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) requires exclusion of the primary entry tear and reestablishment of flow into the distal true lumen. Provided that the majority of tears occur within the ascending aorta (AA), replacing only that segment seems a safe option; however, this strategy leaves the root susceptible to dilatation and need for reintervention. We aimed to review the outcomes of the two strategies: aortic root replacement (ARR) and isolated ascending aortic replacement.

METHODS

 Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for all consecutive patients who underwent repair of acute TAAD at our institution from 2015 to 2020 was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) ARR and (2) isolated AA replacement as index operation for TAAD repair. Primary outcomes were mortality and need for reintervention during the follow-up.

RESULTS

 A total of 194 patients were included in the study; 68 (35%) in the ARR group and 126 (65%) in the AA group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications or in-hospital mortality (23%; p = 0.51) between groups. Seven patients (4.7%) died during follow-up and eight patients underwent aortic reinterventions, including proximal aortic segments (two patients) and distal procedures (six patients).

CONCLUSION

 Both aortic root and AA replacement are acceptable and safe techniques. The growth of an untouched root is slow, and reintervention in this aortic segment is infrequent compared with distal aortic segments, hence preserving the root could be an option for older patients provided that there is no primary tear within the root.

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.

Risk factors for acute kidney injury after Stanford type A aortic dissection repair surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Risk factors for acute kidney injury (AKI) after Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair are inconsistent in different studies. This meta-analysis systematically analyzed the risk factors so as to early identify the therapeutic targets for preventing AKI.

Methods: Studies exploring risk factors for AKI after TAAD repair were searched from four databases from inception to June 2022. The synthesized incidence and risk factors of AKI and its impact on mortality were calculated.

Results: Twenty studies comprising 8223 patients were included. The synthesized incidence of postoperative AKI was 50.7%. Risk factors for AKI included cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time >180 min [odds ratio (OR), 4.89, 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.06–11.61, I² = 0%], prolonged operative time (>7 h) (OR, 2.73, 95% CI, 1.95–3.82, I² = 0), advanced age (per 10 years) (OR, 1.34, 95% CI, 1.21–1.49, I² = 0], increased packed red blood cells (pRBCs) transfusion perioperatively (OR, 1.09, 95% CI, 1.07–1.11, I² = 42%), elevated body mass index (per 5 kg/m²) (OR, 1.23, 95% CI, 1.18–1.28, I² = 42%) and preoperative kidney injury (OR, 3.61, 95% CI, 2.48–5.28, I² = 45%). All results were meta-analyzed using fixed-effects model finally (p < 0.01). The in-hospital or 30-day mortality was higher in patients with postoperative AKI than in that without AKI [risk ratio (RR), 3.12, 95% CI, 2.54–3.85, p < 0.01].

Conclusions: AKI after TAAD repair increased the in-hospital or 30-day mortality. Reducing CPB time and pRBCs transfusion, especially in elderly or heavier weight patients, or patients with preoperative kidney injury were important to prevent AKI after TAAD repair surgery.

The aortic root in acute Type A dissection: repair or replace?

BACKGROUND

The effect of an "aggressive" approach on the aortic root in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) remains insufficiently explored.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a single-center, prospective cohort of consecutive patients diagnosed with ATAAD aged ≥ 18 years, between 1992 and 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups: aortic root replacement (ARR; prosthetic or valve-sparing root replacement; N=141) and conservative root approach (CRA; root sparing of (partially) dissected root, N=90, and supracoronary ascending replacement (SCAR) in non-dissected root, N=68). Inverse probability weighting was used to compare patients with different pre-operative characteristics. Mean follow-up was 5.1 (0-21) in ARR and 7.1 (0-25) years in CRA.

RESULTS

The frequency of aortic root replacement increased over the years, with 19% and 78% of patients undergoing ARR in the earliest and most recent periods, respectively. Early mortality decreased over the years, despite more aggressive approach, and remained lower in ARR. CRA was associated with higher hazard of late mortality (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12 - 1.68; P = 0.001) and reintervention (HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.44 - 3.56; P = 0.001). Following CRA, new-onset aortic valve insufficiency was a common cause of reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the years, there was a gradual increase in root replacement approach in ATAAD. Root replacement was associated with better long-term survival and less reinterventions compared to the conservative approach, while the in-hospital mortality decreased during these years. Hence, "aggressive" root replacement is safe and could be applied in ATAAD with good long-term clinical results, without increased hospital mortality.

The impact of age and sex on in-hospital outcomes in acute type A aortic dissection surgery

Background

Older age and female sex are thought to be risk factors for adverse outcomes after repair of acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD). The aim of this study is to analyze age- and sex-related outcomes in patients undergoing AAAD repair.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing emergency AAAD repair. Patients were divided in Group A, patients aged ≥75 years and Group B <75. Intraoperative and postoperative data were compared between groups before and after propensity score matching. Sex differences were analyzed by age group.

Results

Between January 2006 and December 2018, 638 patients underwent emergency AAAD repair. Group A included 143 patients (22.4%), Group B 495 (77.6%). More patients in Group A presented with circulatory collapse (Penn C 26.6% vs. 9.7%, P=0.001) while Group B presented with circulatory collapse-branch malperfusion (Penn BC 29.3% vs. 15.4% P=0.001). After propensity score matching, Group B patients received more complex aortic root (33.6% vs. 23.2%, P=0.019) and concomitant bypass surgery (12.3% vs. 6.3%, P=0.042). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between age groups (18% vs. 12% P=0.12). In Group B, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in females (22.2% vs. 8.2%, P=0.028). Differences in mortality disappeared after the age of 75 (18.3% vs. 19.4% P=0.87).

Conclusions

Morbidity and mortality are comparable between patients under and over 75 years after AAAD repair. Female patients <75 had higher in-hospital mortality than their male counterparts.

Survival after aortic root replacement with a stentless xenograft is determined by patient characteristics

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to examine intermediate-term survival and reinterventions in unselected patients, stratified according to indication, who received a Freestyle (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) bioprosthesis as a full aortic root replacement.

METHODS

Data from medical records were retrospectively collected for patients who had aortic root replacement using Freestyle bioprostheses between 1999 and 2018 at 6 North-Atlantic centers. Survival status was extracted from national registries and results stratified according to indication for surgery.

RESULTS

We included 1030 implantations in 1008 patients with elective indications for surgery: aneurysm (39.8%), small root (8.3%), and other (13.8%), and urgent/emergent indications: endocarditis (26.7%) and Stanford type A aortic dissection (11.4%). Across indications, 46.3% were nonelective cases and 34.0% were reoperations. Median age was 66.0 (interquartile range, 58.0-71.8) years and median follow-up was 5.0 (interquartile range, 2.6-7.9) years. Thirty-day mortality varied from 2.9% to 27.4% depending on indication. Intermediate survival for 90-day survivors with elective indications were not different from the general population standardized for age and sex (P = .95, .83, and .16 for aneurysms, small roots, and other, respectively). In contrast, patients with endocarditis and type A dissection had excess mortality (P < .001). Freedom from valve reinterventions was 95.0% and 94.4% at 5 and 8 years, respectively. In all, 52 patients (5.2%) underwent reinterventions, most because of endocarditis.

CONCLUSIONS

At intermediate term follow-up this retrospective study provides further support for the use of the Freestyle bioprosthesis in the real-world setting of diverse, complex, and often high-risk aortic root replacement and suggests that outcome is determined by patient and disease, rather than by prosthesis, characteristics.

Effect of Aortic Valve Type on Patients Who Undergo Type A Aortic Dissection Repair

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is common in the setting of type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair. Here, we evaluated the association between prosthesis choice and patient outcomes in an international patient cohort. We reviewed data from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) interventional cohort to examine the relationship between valve choice and short- and mid-term patient outcomes. Between January 1996 and March 2016, 1290 surgically treated patients with TAAD were entered into the IRAD interventional cohort. Of those, 364 patients undergoing TAAD repair underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR; mean age, 57 years). The mechanical valve cohort consisted of 189 patients, of which 151 (79.9%) had a root replacement. The nonmechanical valve cohort consisted of 5 patients who received homografts and 160 patients who received a biologic AVR, with a total of 118 (71.5%) patients who underwent root replacements. The mean follow-up time was 2.92 ± 1.75 years overall (2.46 ± 1.69 years for the mechanical valve cohort and 3.48 ± 1.8 years for the nonmechanical valve cohort). After propensity matching, Kaplan-Meier estimates of 4-year survival rates after surgery were 64.8% in the mechanical valve group compared with 74.7% in the nonmechanical valve group (p = 0.921). A stratified Cox model for 4-year mortality showed no difference in hazard between valve types after adjusting for the propensity score (p = 0.854). A biologic valve is a reasonable option in patients with TAAD who require AVR. Although this option avoids the potential risks of anticoagulation, long-term follow up is necessary to assess the effect of reoperations or transcatheter interventions for structural valve degeneration.

Fate of Preserved Aortic Root Following Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair

We examined the long-term fate of the preserved aortic root after emergent repair of acute Type A aortic dissection. 144 patients (60% males, mean age 60.5 years) underwent supracoronary ascending aortic replacement for acute Type A aortic dissection. Long-term survival, as well as growth, reoperation, and adverse events of the aortic root (rupture, pseudoaneurysm, and persistent dissection) were retrospectively assessed. Operative mortality was 9%, and overall survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 87.8%, 76.4%, and 64.6%, respectively. Reoperation on the proximal aorta was performed in 16 patients (12.2%) within a median of 2.45 years post-operatively. Indications were severe aortic insufficiency (AI) (n = 6), aortic root pseudoaneurysm (n = 8), pseudoaneurysm with severe AI (n = 1), and persistent dissection with severe AI (n = 1). The aortic root grew at 0.2mm/year (interquartile range 0-0.8). Among survivors (n = 131), 28 patients (21.3%) reached aortic root diameter ≥ 45 mm (mean diameter 47.6 mm, range 45-54 mm). Survival free from proximal aortic reoperation at 1, 5, and 10 years was 96.6%, 94.5%, and 92.2%, respectively. No non-reoperated patient-despite persistent, unoperated enlargement or distortion or pseudoaneurysm of the aortic root-developed free rupture or fistula to a cardiac chamber. Root-sparing ascending aortic replacement for acute Type-A aortic dissection showed satisfactory long-term outcomes with relatively low rates of re-intervention or serious aortic root adverse events despite dilatation and irregularity of aortic root contour. Dense adhesions from prior surgery, proximal aortic suture line, and Teflon felt seem to discourage free rupture or fistulization.

Short- and long-term outcomes of aortic root-sparing repair and replacement in acute type A aortic dissection repair

Acute type A aortic dissection is a surgical emergency with a high mortality rate if left untreated. Management of the aortic root in this setting constitutes an intricate decision-making framework, further complicated by the emergent nature of the dissection. There exists much controversy regarding pursuit of the aggressive aortic root replacement versus a conservative root-sparing repair, alongside considerations for valve-sparing root replacement. In this review, we critically appraise the current controversy in the literature considering the fate of the aortic root, discussing the aforementioned root interventions for which provides better outcomes for mortality and risk of re-intervention. Literature search was performed using electronic database through PubMed, Google scholar, and Embase focussing on studies reporting outcomes and re-intervention rates for these approaches. Limited by the heterogeneity in surgical strategy, with most studies being single-centred retrospective experiences, further fuel this ongoing debate. The literature reveals rather contrasting results whilst comparing root-sparing repair, versus the extensive root replacement; whilst some studies report no statistically significant difference, others show one superior over the other. There is greater consensus when considering risk of re-operation, with studies showing higher rates of re-operation in root-sparing group compared to replacement; however, many others show no statistically significant difference. In conclusion, the conflicting outcomes reported in the literature, with their inherent limitations, results in the current inability to reach a definitive answer. There remains support in the current literature for both approaches with much of the decision-making being surgeon-bound with many significant influencing factors on a case-by-case basis.

Long-term survival and frequency of reinterventions after proximal aortic surgery: a retrospective study†

OBJECTIVES

We sought to analyse perioperative outcome, long-term mortality, frequency and causes of reintervention, and survival benefit in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing proximal thoracic aortic surgery.

METHODS

Participants comprised all patients undergoing open surgery for proximal thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n = 319) and thoracic aortic dissection type A (TAD) (n = 229) during 2005-2014 at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Uppsala University Hospital. Long-term survival was compared to age- and sex-matched controls. Perioperative mortality and morbidity, event-free survival and causes of reoperation were also analysed.

RESULTS

Long-term mortality was normalized in patients with TAA, and a survival benefit was seen as early as 20 months when corrected for time lost due to perioperative mortality. Long-term survivors undergoing surgery for TAD, on the other hand, had a 10-year mortality of 130% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 120-140%] compared to age- and sex-matched controls. Moreover, their event-free survival was half that of patients with TAA (hazard ratio 2.3; 95% CI 1.7-3.2). Reintervention (i.e. reoperation or thoracic endovascular aortic repair) was also twice as common in the TAD patients (odds ratio 2.0; 95% CI 1.1-3.5). The dominant causes for reoperation among TAD patients were aortic insufficiency, aortic arch aneurysm and infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery for TAA is relatively safe, normalizes long-term mortality and confers an early survival benefit. However, TAD surgery carries a high risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity, as well as increased long-term mortality and risk of reintervention.

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.

Lower body ischaemic time is a risk factor for acute kidney injury after surgery for type A acute aortic dissection

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) is known as a risk factor for death after surgery for Stanford type A acute aortic dissection under hypothermic circulatory arrest. It may also adversely affect long-term survival. We searched for modifiable risk factors for postoperative AKI, focusing on lower body ischaemic time.

METHODS

We reviewed 191 patients undergoing surgical repair for Stanford type A acute aortic dissection. The distal anastomosis depended on excluding the primary tear location, resulting in ascending/hemiarch (n = 119), partial arch (n = 18) and total arch replacement (n = 54). We defined an increase in the serum creatinine level to ≧2 times the baseline level as AKI. The incidence of AKI was investigated with multivariate analysis of its risk factors.

RESULTS

Postoperative AKI was observed in 49 patients (26%), 31% of whom required renal replacement therapy. The overall hospital mortality rate was 8.5%. Postoperative AKI, preoperative shock and organ malperfusion were predictors of hospital death. Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis identified age, body mass index, preoperative chronic kidney disease and lower body ischaemic time as risk factors for postoperative AKI.

CONCLUSIONS

Although surgical repair for Stanford type A acute aortic dissection showed favourable results, the incidence of postoperative AKI is still high, closely associated with hospital death. Lower body ischaemic time should be recognized specifically as a modifiable surgical risk factor for postoperative AKI.

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.

Operative and Long-Term Outcomes After Curative Repair of Acute Dissection Involving the Proximal Aorta

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate operative and long-term results after acute type A aorta dissection (AAAD) operation, in which complete resection of all dissected aortic segments (curative repair) was achieved.

METHODS

Among 205 consecutive patients operated on between 2002 and 2014 because of AAAD were 88 patients (42.9%), in whom the dissection did not extend into the downstream aorta. The distal extension of the dissection ended before the origin of the innominate artery in 50 patients of the study cohort (56.8%) or extended throughout the arch, necessitating a total/subtotal arch replacement to achieve a curative distal repair in 38 remaining patients (43.2%). The aortic root was involved in 52 patients (59.1%) and was repaired using valve-sparing repair (31) or replacement with a valve composite graft (21). Combination of root and open arch surgery was reported in 46 patients (52.3%).

RESULTS

Thirty-day and in-hospital mortalities were 3.4% and 5.7%, respectively. Survival was estimated starting with the operation and was 81.9% ± 4.5% and 56.6% ± 8.7% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. No patient required reoperation on the aortic root and/or distal thoracoabdominal aorta; however 2 cardiac reoperations were unrelated to the primary surgical procedure. Moreover, the freedom of aortic and/or sudden/unknown death was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Curative aortic repair can be achieved in a relevant share of AAAD patients and is mostly limited by the distal extension of dissection. This kind of repair is advisable, whenever possible, because it can provide very low risk of aortic complications and/or reoperations over time.

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.

Aortic remodeling with frozen elephant trunk technique for Stanford type A aortic dissection using Japanese J-graft open stent graft

The frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique allows single-stage extended surgical repair of Stanford type A aortic dissection and has shown promotion of aortic remodeling by maintaining the true lumen flow and facilitating its expansion and by promoting false lumen thrombosis. However, few studies have compared the effectiveness of FET technique, in terms of the downstream aortic remodeling. Between 2005 and 2017, 50 patients underwent total arch replacement for Stanford type A aortic dissection, including that with (n = 22) and without FET technique (n = 28). We compared distal aortic remodeling in patients who underwent total arch replacement with (using a J-Graft open stent graft) or without the technique. The false lumen complete thrombosis rate and the ratio of true lumen area at three levels of the descending aorta were evaluated post operation. In FET group, the diameter and length of the stent graft were 29.0 ± 3.9 mm and 70.9 ± 17.4 mm, respectively. The in-hospital death with and without the FET technique was 0 and 3, respectively, with no late death in both groups. Eight patients (28.6%) only in the non-FET group required additional surgical treatment for downstream aorta. In the FET group, the ratio of true lumen area at the level of bronchial carina and false lumen complete thrombosis rate at the levels of bronchial carina and aortic valve were significantly higher than non-FET group. A more favorable remodeling in the descending aorta was observed in patients who underwent FET associated with a total arch replacement compared to those who underwent total arch replacement alone.

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.