Does adding a root replacement in type A aortic dissection repair provide better outcomes?

Risk Prediction Models for Management of Patients following Acute Aortic Dissection

Risk prediction of adverse outcomes post aortic dissection is dependet not only on the postdissection-associated clinical factors but on the very foundation of the risk factors that lead up to the dissection itself. There are various such risk factors existing prior to the dissection which impact the postdissection outcomes. In this paper, we review the literature to critically analyze various risk models, burdened by their significant limitations, that attempt to stratify risk prediction based on postdissection patient characteristics. We further review several studies across the literature that investigate the diverse set of predissection risk factors impacting postdissection outcomes. We have discussed and appraised numerous studies which attempt to develop a tool to stratify risk prediction by incorporating the impacts of different factors: malperfusion, blood biochemistry, and perioperative outcomes. The well-validated Penn classification has clearly demonstrated in the literature the significant impact that malperfusion has on adverse outcomes postdissection. Other risk models, already severely hindered by their limitations, lack such validation. We further discuss additional alluded risk factors, including the impact of predissection aortic size, the syndromic and nonsyndromic natures of dissection, and the effects of family history and genetics, which collectively contribute to the risk of adverse outcomes postdissection and prognosis. To achieve the goal of a true risk model, there remains the vital need for appreciation and appropriate consideration for all such aforementioned factors, from before and after the dissection, as discussed in this paper. By being able to incorporate the value of true risk prediction for a patient into the decision-making framework, it will allow a new page of precision medical decision-making to be written.

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.