OBJECTIVES: We reviewed our single-centre experience with emergent operative repair of Stanford Type A aortic dissections, with particular attention to outcomes in the elderly. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing emergent operative repair of acute Type A aortic dissections between February 2004 and December 2011 at a single institution were identified. Patients were stratified into elderly (≥ 70 years) and control cohorts (<70 years). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate survival. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients undergoing emergent repair of Type A aortic dissection were identified during the study period, including 31 (26.5%) elderly and 86 (73.5%) control patients. The mean age in the elderly cohort was 78.0 ± 4.7 years, with 41.9% (13 of 31) being 80 years or older. The elderly and control groups were well matched with regard to preoperative comorbidities (each P>0.05) and the presence of malperfusion at presentation (elderly: 19.4 vs controls: 27.9%, P = 0.35). The most common site of tear involved the proximal ascending aorta (elderly: 83.9 vs controls: 84.9%), with fewer cases affecting the aortic arch (12.9 vs 14.0%; P = 0.75). Operative data, including cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp time, concomitant aortic valve procedures and arch replacement were also similar between cohorts. Fewer elderly patients underwent hypothermic circulatory arrest (67.7 vs 90.7%, P = 0.002). Overall survival to discharge was 87.2% (n = 102), with no difference in the elderly (83.9%; n = 26) vs controls (88.4%; n = 76; P = 0.52). The 30-day (elderly: 82.8 vs controls: 86.2%), 90-day (elderly: 79.0 vs controls: 84.8%) and 1-year (elderly: 75.4 vs controls: 84.8%) survivals were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent operative outcomes can be achieved in elderly patients undergoing emergent repair of Type A aortic dissections. Advanced patient age should therefore not serve as an absolute contraindication to operative repair in this high-risk cohort.
OBJECTIVES: We reviewed our single-centre experience with emergent operative repair of Stanford Type A aortic dissections, with particular attention to outcomes in the elderly. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing emergent operative repair of acute Type A aortic dissections between February 2004 and December 2011 at a single institution were identified. Patients were stratified into elderly (≥ 70 years) and control cohorts (<70 years). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate survival. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients undergoing emergent repair of Type A aortic dissection were identified during the study period, including 31 (26.5%) elderly and 86 (73.5%) control patients. The mean age in the elderly cohort was 78.0 ± 4.7 years, with 41.9% (13 of 31) being 80 years or older. The elderly and control groups were well matched with regard to preoperative comorbidities (each P>0.05) and the presence of malperfusion at presentation (elderly: 19.4 vs controls: 27.9%, P = 0.35). The most common site of tear involved the proximal ascending aorta (elderly: 83.9 vs controls: 84.9%), with fewer cases affecting the aortic arch (12.9 vs 14.0%; P = 0.75). Operative data, including cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp time, concomitant aortic valve procedures and arch replacement were also similar between cohorts. Fewer elderly patients underwent hypothermic circulatory arrest (67.7 vs 90.7%, P = 0.002). Overall survival to discharge was 87.2% (n = 102), with no difference in the elderly (83.9%; n = 26) vs controls (88.4%; n = 76; P = 0.52). The 30-day (elderly: 82.8 vs controls: 86.2%), 90-day (elderly: 79.0 vs controls: 84.8%) and 1-year (elderly: 75.4 vs controls: 84.8%) survivals were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Excellent operative outcomes can be achieved in elderly patients undergoing emergent repair of Type A aortic dissections. Advanced patient age should therefore not serve as an absolute contraindication to operative repair in this high-risk cohort.
Entities:
Keywords:
Aortic dissection; Elderly; Great vessels
Authors: P G Hagan; C A Nienaber; E M Isselbacher; D Bruckman; D J Karavite; P L Russman; A Evangelista; R Fattori; T Suzuki; J K Oh; A G Moore; J F Malouf; L A Pape; C Gaca; U Sechtem; S Lenferink; H J Deutsch; H Diedrichs; J Marcos y Robles; A Llovet; D Gilon; S K Das; W F Armstrong; G M Deeb; K A Eagle Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-02-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert S Bonser; Aaron M Ranasinghe; Mahmoud Loubani; Jonathan D Evans; Nassir M A Thalji; Jean E Bachet; Thierry P Carrel; Martin Czerny; Roberto Di Bartolomeo; Martin Grabenwöger; Lars Lonn; Carlos A Mestres; Marc A A M Schepens; Ernst Weigang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rajendra H Mehta; Toru Suzuki; Peter G Hagan; Eduardo Bossone; Dan Gilon; Alfredo Llovet; Luis C Maroto; Jeanna V Cooper; Dean E Smith; William F Armstrong; Christoph A Nienaber; Kim A Eagle Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E Neri; T Toscano; M Massetti; G Capannini; E Carone; E Tucci; F Diciolla; S Scolletta; R Morello; C Sassi Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Thierry Caus; Jean M Frapier; Roch Giorgi; Thierry Aymard; Alberto Riberi; Bernard Albat; Paul A Chaptal; Thierry Mesana Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 4.191