Computed Tomography Imaging Measurements as a Surrogate for Clinical Outcomes After Surgical Management of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Postoperative computed tomography imaging surveillance is an essential component of care after acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair. Prognostic imaging factors after ATAAD repair have not been systematically reviewed.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic review to summarize postoperative computed tomography measurements including aortic diameter, cross-sectional area, volume, growth rate, and false lumen thrombosis in addition mid- to long-term clinical outcomes after ATAAD repair. Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL in October 2022. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes such as mortality or aortic reintervention after 1 year and included aforementioned computed tomography findings. Studies of chronic aortic dissection and studies of exclusive patient populations such as those with connective tissue diseases were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Searches retrieved 6999 articles. Sixty-eight studies met inclusion criteria (7885 patients). Extended repairs were associated with improved false lumen thrombosis, decreased aortic growth rate, and decreased rates of reintervention but not improved survival. Growth rates of the aorta post-ATAAD repair were highest in the descending thoracic aorta. The most frequent prognostic imaging factors reported were a patent/partially thrombosed false lumen and postoperative aortic diameter >40 to 45 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Established measurements of positive aortic remodeling, including complete false lumen thrombosis and stabilization of postoperative aortic diameter and growth are the most studied prognostic indicators for improved clinical outcomes after ATAAD repair. Growth rate of the aorta remains significant after ATAAD repair. Future studies should prospectively evaluate and compare prognostic factors for improved surveillance and management.

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.

Fate of the Patent False Lumen of the Descending Aorta After Surgical Treatment for Acute Type 1 Aortic Dissection

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate the factors affecting false lumen patency in the descending thoracic aorta among patients who underwent surgery for acute type 1 aortic dissection.

METHODS

A total of 112 patients with acute type 1 aortic dissection, with the flap below the diaphragm level, underwent surgery between January 2010 and September 2019. Of these, 60 patients who were followed up for ≥ 12 months and whose computed tomography scans were available were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: group I, consists of patent false lumen (n=36), and group II, consists of thrombosed false lumen (n=24). Demographic data, operative techniques, postoperative descending aortic diameters, reintervention, and late mortality were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period of all patients was 37.6±26.1 months (range: 12-104). The diameter increase in the proximal and distal descending aorta was significantly higher in the patent false lumen group (5.3±3.7 mm vs. 3.25±2.34 mm; P=0.015; 3.1±2.52 mm vs. 1.9±1.55 mm; P=0.038, respectively). No significant difference in terms of hypertension was found between the two groups during the follow-up period (21 patients, 58.3% vs. 8 patients, 33.3%; P=0.058). A total of 29 patients (48.3%) were found to be hypertensive in the postoperative period.

CONCLUSION

After surgical treatment for acute type 1 aortic dissection, patients should be monitored closely, regardless of whether the false lumen is patent or thrombosed. Mortality and reintervention can be seen in patients with patent false lumen during follow-up.

Evaluation of Two Online Risk Prediction Models for the Mortality Rate of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Surgery: The German Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection Type A Score and the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II

EuroSCORE II is one of the most widely utilized cardiovascular surgery risk scoring systems. Recently, a new online score calculator, namely the German Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection Type A (GERAADA), was launched to predict 30-day surgical mortality for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the predictive performance of these two scores. We calculated the two scores for 1346 ATAAD patients from January 2012 to December 2021. The overall performance was evaluated using Brier scores and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were employed to assess diagnostic ability, and the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was utilized to evaluate calibration. The GERAADA score and EuroSCORE II predicted 30-day mortality rates of 14.7% and 3.1%, respectively, while the observed rate was 12.5%. The predictive ability of EuroSCORE II (AUC 0.708, 95% CI: 0.664-0.792) was superior to that of the GERAADA score (0.648, 95% CI: 0.605-0.692). The GERAADA score had higher sensitivity but lower specificity than EuroSCORE II. And the GERAADA score may overestimate mortality (0.76, 95% CI: 0.65-0.89), while EuroSCORE II may underestimate the mortality rate (3.17, 95% CI: 2.92-3.44). The EuroSCORE II was superior in predicting surgical mortality among ATAAD patients. But the observed 30-day mortality rate certified a good calibration for the GERAADA score.

Distal Aortic Progression After Hemiarch, Zones 1-3 Arch Replacement in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

There is debate regarding aortic arch repair extent for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients.

METHODS

From 1996 to 2021, 756 ATAAD patients underwent open arch replacement. The cohort was divided into hemiarch (n = 481), zone 1 (n = 65), zone 2 (n = 148), and zone 3 (n = 62) arch replacement groups. Cross-group comparison of aortic growth was modeled using data from interval postoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the distal aorta.

RESULTS

Demographics were not significantly different except the hemiarch group had more coronary artery disease and less stroke. Intraoperatively, zones 1, 2, and 3 had greater cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermic circulatory arrest times and required more intraoperative blood transfusion than the hemiarch group. Perioperative outcomes were similar among groups except zone 3 had more reoperation for bleeding. Ten-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was hemiarch, 16.7%; zone 1, 16.3%; zone 2, 21.5%; and zone 3, 17.6% (P = .70). Ten-year survival was similar: hemiarch, 66%; zone 1, 60.3%; zone 2, 68.0%); and zone 3 66.1% (P = .20). Aortic arch, descending aorta, and abdominal aorta growth rates were not significantly different among groups over 10 years. In the whole cohort, the growth rate over time for aortic arch was 0.38 mm per year (P < .001), descending aorta 0.84 mm per year (P < .001), and abdominal aorta 0.69 mm per year (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in long-term survival, distal aorta growth, or reoperation rate for distal aortic aneurysm after hemiarch or zones 1, 2, or 3 arch replacement. Patient-specific arch replacement strategies may be used rather than defaulting to aggressive arch replacement for all ATAAD patients.

Outcomes of reoperation for total arch replacement combined with frozen elephant trunk after previous cardiovascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Aortic arch replacement(TAR) combined with frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique is a high-risk operation after previous cardiovascular surgery. The aim of the study was to review our strategy and outcomes in this cohort.

METHOD

Data were reviewed for patients who underwent TAR combined with FET after previous cardiovascular surgery from January 2010 to December 2020. The patients were divided into elective group and non-selective group.

RESULTS

63 eligible patients were divided into elective(n = 44) and non-elective(n = 19) groups. The interval between two operations was shorter in non-elective group than elective groups (P = 0.001). The indication for reoperation was different in two groups (P = 0.000), however, the type of reoperations has no differences. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was shorter in elective group than non-elective group (P = 0.000). The over-all 30-day mortality rate was 17.5%, and it was higher in non-elective group (P = 0.013). The 24h drainage increased in non-elective group (P = 0.001) as well as re-explore rate for bleeding (P = 0.022). Postoperative hospital stay prolonged in non-elective group (P = 0.002). However, rates of survival without further aortic events were 72.3 ± 7.1% in elective group, 72.9 ± 13.5% in non-elective group at 5 years, respectively (P = 0. 955).

CONCLUSION

Reduced 30-day mortality and shortened post-operative hospital stay was observed in elective group, however, long-term survival rate without reintervention were not affected.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Neuroanatomy and severity of stroke in patients with type A aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

Strokes are a longstanding complication of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair. Understanding the neuroanatomy, mechanism, and severity of stroke will facilitate efforts to improve prediction, prevention, and treatment strategies.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients who sustained stroke from a consecutive series of patients undergoing ATAAD repair. Neuroimaging was interpreted by two stroke neurologists blinded to clinical results. Severity of stroke was assessed by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Residual disability at 30 days was assessed using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

RESULTS

Twenty percent (38/189) of patients undergoing repair for ATAAD had stroke (unilateral 58%, bi-hemispheric 42% [p = .33]). All strokes were ischemic. No significant lateralization (right vs. left) was noted with unilateral strokes (26% vs. 32%, p = .67). Etiology of stroke was embolic (58%), hypoperfusion (26%), mixed (11%), and unknown (5%). There were no intraoperative variables that correlated with the neuroanatomy or mechanism of stroke. Preoperative carotid dissection was seen in 40% (n = 15), while postoperatively 10% (n = 4) sustained intracranial large vessel occlusion (LVO). Strokes were moderate or severe (NIHSS ≥ 9) in 97% of cases, with 66% incidence of moderate residual disability (mRS ≥ 3) at 1 month postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Strokes associated with ATAAD are severe at presentation resulting in significant disability. One in 10 strokes is due to LVO and potentially amenable to endovascular treatment. Heterogeneity in both location and etiology of stroke makes prevention challenging. Future trials may evaluate the role of early neuroimaging and simultaneous treatment of stroke given advancements in endovascular therapy.

Type A aortic dissection: involvement of carotid artery and impact on cerebral malperfusion

Acute type A aortic dissection is a surgical emergency and management of such pathology can be complex with poor outcomes when there is organ malperfusion. Carotid artery involvement is present in 30% of patients diagnosed with acute type A aortic dissection, and given its emergency and complex nature, there is much controversy regarding the approach, extent of treatment, and timing of the intervention. It is clear that the occurrence of cerebral malperfusion adds an extra layer of complexity to the decision-making framework for treatment. Standardization and validation of the optimal management approach is required, and this should ideally be addressed with large-scale studies. Nonetheless, current literature supports the need for rapid recognition and diagnosis of acute type A aortic dissection with cerebral malperfusion, immediate and extensive surgical repair, and the appropriate use of cerebral perfusion techniques. This paper aims to discuss the current evidence regarding the impact of carotid artery involvement in both the management and outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection.

Is limited aortic resection more justified in elderly patients with type A acute aortic dissection?-insights from single center experience

BACKGROUND

This study compared limited aortic repair (ascending, and /or hemi-arch replacement) versus extended-arch repair (ascending, arch and proximal descending aortic replacement) used for patients aged 65 or older, who had type A acute aortic dissection (AAD), analyzing the influence of the extent of aortic repair on outcomes.

METHODS

From January, 2001 to December, 2015, 103 patients aged 65 or older underwent operation due to type A AAD in Nanjing First Hospital. The cohort was divided into two subgroups according to the surgical approaches, including limited aortic replacement (LAR, n = 41) and total arch replacement + stent elephant trunk implantation (TAR+SET, n = 62).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, PCI history, atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, aortic valve insufficiency (≥ moderate), shock situation before operation, and Euro-score II between the two groups except limb malperfusion and tear location. The cross-clamp time, CPB time, intubation time, ICU stay time and hospital time were all significantly less in the LAR group than in the TAR+SET group. A total of 89 patients were discharged home successfully after operation, with a difference of hospital mortality (P = 0.04). The overall survival rates at 5-year follow-up were 82.5 ± 6.0% in LAR group and 75.2 ± 5.6% in TAR+SET group, but with no difference (p = 0.151). The freedom from adverse aortic events at 5-year was 84.3 ± 6.5% in LAR group versus 97.9 ± 2.1% in TAR+SET group, with a statistical difference (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

These findings support limited aortic resection is acceptable for elderly patients with type A AAD if surgical principles allow.