Prevention and management of difficult hemostasis in acute type A aortic dissection repair

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.

Aortic arch branch-prioritized reconstruction for type A aortic dissection surgery

Background

Acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (STAAD) is a fatal condition requiring urgent surgical intervention. Owing to the complexity of the surgical process, various complications, such as neurological disorders, are common. In this study, we prioritized the reconstruction of aortic arch branches during surgery and investigated the association between prioritizing the branches and the postoperative outcomes of patients with STAAD.

Methods

Ninety-seven patients were included in the observational study and underwent total arch replacement and frozen elephant trunk technique between January 2018 and June 2021. Of these, 35 patients underwent the branch-priority technique, and 62 patients underwent the classic technique. By analyzing the perioperative outcomes, we compared the differences between the two techniques.

Results

The branch priority group had significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and ventilator times and earlier postoperative wake-up times than the classic group. Additionally, the ICU stay time was shorter, with a significant decrease in neurological complications and 24 h drainage in the branch priority group compared to the classic group.

Conclusion

The branch priority technique can effectively provide better brain protection, resulting in earlier awakening of patients after surgery, reduced neurological complications, shorter ventilation time and decreased ICU hospitalization time. Therefore, it is recommended for use in aortic dissection surgeries.