Time and Risk Analysis for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Surgery Performed by Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest, Cerebral Perfusion, and Open Distal Aortic Anastomosis

Impact of after-hours surgery on outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection repair

PURPOSE

To establish whether emergency surgery performed outside working hours (after hours) contributed to adverse outcomes for patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD).

METHODS

We reviewed the operation records of ATAAD repair in our institution from 2004 to 2019 (n = 187). Emergency surgery was performed by one of a few teams of experienced surgeons, regardless of the time of day. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgery start time: during working hours (n = 65) and after hours (n = 122). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed for 58 pairs of patients.

RESULTS

The overall in-hospital mortality was 6.9% for the working-hours group and 13.8% for the after-hours group. There were no significant differences between the groups in the relatively limited study population (n = 187). Surgeon experience and aortic interventions did not differ remarkably between the groups. After-hours repair was not associated with postoperative complications. There were no significant differences in the long-term survival or aortic event-free rates between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

After-hours surgery did not affect the short- or long-term outcomes of ATAAD repair under our backup system, which supports the recommendation of immediate surgical repair. Efforts to minimize the discrepancies between working hours and after hours could help to improve the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing ATAAD repair.

Is There a Weekend Effect in Surgery for Type A Dissection?: Results From the Nordic Consortium for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Database

BACKGROUND

Aortic dissection type A requires immediate surgery. In general surgery populations, patients operated on during weekends have higher mortality rates compared with patients whose operations occur on weekdays. The weekend effect in aortic dissection type A has not been studied in detail.

METHODS

The Nordic Consortium for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection (NORCAAD) registry includes data for 1,159 patients who underwent type A dissection surgery at 8 Nordic centers during 2005 to 2014. This study is based on data relating to surgery conducted during weekdays versus weekends and starting between 8:00 am and 8:00 pm ("daytime") versus from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am ("nighttime"), as well as time from symptoms, admittance, and diagnosis to surgery. The influence of timing of surgery on the 30-day mortality rate was assessed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality was 18% (204 of 1,159), with no difference in mortality between surgery performed on weekdays (17% [150 of 889]) and on weekends (20% [54 of 270], p = 0.45), or during nighttime (19% [87 of 467]) versus daytime (17% [117 of 680], p = 0.54). Time from symptoms to surgery (median 7.0 hours vs 6.5 hours, p = 0.31) did not differ between patients who survived and those who died at 30 days. Multivariable regression analysis of risk factors for 30-day mortality showed no weekend effect (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 60.67 to 1.60; p = 0.875), but nighttime surgery was a risk factor (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.29 to 4.56; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The 30-day mortality in surgical repair of aortic dissection type A was not significantly affected by timing of surgery during weekends versus weekdays. Nighttime surgery seems to predict increased 30-day mortality, after correction for other risk factors.

Thromboelastometry Based Early Goal-Directed Coagulation Management Reduces Blood Transfusion Requirements, Adverse Events, and Costs in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND: In aortic surgery bleeding complications can be fatal. Therefore, rotational thromboelastometry(ROTEM™)-based coagulation management was introduced. METHODS: After 5 cases of acute type A aortic dissection and aortic arch replacement had been treated based on ROTEM findings (ROTEM group; RG), 5 cases without ROTEM were matched as control group (CG). CG treatment was based on conventional tests and clinical findings. Blood component and coagulation factor requirements, ventilation time, duration of stay at intensive care unit (ICU), hospitalization, and thrombotic or bleeding incidents as well as transfusion-associated costs were compared. RESULTS: Administration of blood products and coagulation factor concentrates, ventilation time, ICU length of stay, and hospitalization tended to be lower in RG. Postoperative plasma transfusion (p = 0.038), recognized incidents (p = 0.048), and resulting costs on coagulation treatment (p = 0.049) were significantly reduced. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that ROTEM-based coagulation management can reduce transfusion requirements and corresponding costs in patients with aortic arch replacement. These data has to be confirmed by prospective randomized trials.

Evidence, lack of evidence, controversy, and debate in the provision and performance of the surgery of acute type A aortic dissection

Acute type A aortic dissection is a lethal condition requiring emergency surgery. It has diverse presentations, and the diagnosis can be missed or delayed. Once diagnosed, decisions with regard to initial management, transfer, appropriateness of surgery, timing of operation, and intervention for malperfusion complications are necessary. The goals of surgery are to save life by prevention of pericardial tamponade or intra-pericardial aortic rupture, to resect the primary entry tear, to correct or prevent any malperfusion and aortic valve regurgitation, and if possible to prevent late dissection-related complications in the proximal and downstream aorta. No randomized trials of treatment or techniques have ever been performed, and novel therapies-particularly with regard to extent of surgery-are being devised and implemented, but their role needs to be defined. Overall, except in highly specialized centers, surgical outcomes might be static, and there is abundant room for improvement. By highlighting difficulties and controversies in diagnosis, patient selection, and surgical therapy, our over-arching goal should be to enfranchise more patients for treatment and improve surgical outcomes.