OBJECTIVES: The study was conducted to evaluate our results of acute aortic dissection repair taking into account the impact of surgical experience in aortic surgery. METHODS: Between August 2002 and March 2013, 162 consecutive patients (mean age: 63 ± 14 years) underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. All patients were operated on by one of the clinic's attending surgeons with wide experience in cardiac surgery (at least 2000 procedures performed personally), however about one-half of the patients (75 patients, 46%) were operated by the aortic team (AT) surgeons with profound experience in complex aortic pathologies. All perioperative data were collected prospectively and retrospective statistical analysis was performed using uni- and multivariate analyses to identify predictors for surgical adverse outcome (AO) containing in-hospital and/or 90-day mortality and new permanent neurological and organ dysfunctions. RESULTS: AO was observed in 36 patients (22.2%) including in-hospital mortality in 22 (13.6%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified surgery not performed by the AT as the strongest predictor for AO (odds ratio: 14.1; 95% confidence interval: 3.5-55.6; P < 0.0001) followed by any malperfusion, myocardial infarction and creatinine level. Two groups were built according to the surgery performed by the AT (Group AT) or by the surgeons not on the AT (Group No-AT). The comparison of the groups showed no relevant differences regarding the preoperative characteristics, especially compromised consciousness, malperfusion and extent of dissection. Yet, the outcomes in Group AT vs No-AT were significantly different presenting AO: 8.0 vs 34.5% (P < 0.0001), in-hospital mortality: 4.0 vs and 21.8% (P < 0.001), new permanent neurological deficit: 2.7 vs 11.5% (P = 0.03), even if valve-sparing repairs and complete arch replacements were much more frequent in Group AT. The groups also differed considerably in regard to cannulation and perfusion management, which might play a decisive role in surgical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic repair in acute type A dissection, when performed by highly specialized aortic surgeons, offers not only much better outcomes but also provides significantly higher rate of curative albeit valve-sparing aortic repairs. Patient-centred care in referral aortic centres with surgery performed by specialized teams should be striven for to improve surgical results in acute aortic dissection surgery.
OBJECTIVES: The study was conducted to evaluate our results of acute aortic dissection repair taking into account the impact of surgical experience in aortic surgery. METHODS: Between August 2002 and March 2013, 162 consecutive patients (mean age: 63 ± 14 years) underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. All patients were operated on by one of the clinic's attending surgeons with wide experience in cardiac surgery (at least 2000 procedures performed personally), however about one-half of the patients (75 patients, 46%) were operated by the aortic team (AT) surgeons with profound experience in complex aortic pathologies. All perioperative data were collected prospectively and retrospective statistical analysis was performed using uni- and multivariate analyses to identify predictors for surgical adverse outcome (AO) containing in-hospital and/or 90-day mortality and new permanent neurological and organ dysfunctions. RESULTS:AO was observed in 36 patients (22.2%) including in-hospital mortality in 22 (13.6%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified surgery not performed by the AT as the strongest predictor for AO (odds ratio: 14.1; 95% confidence interval: 3.5-55.6; P < 0.0001) followed by any malperfusion, myocardial infarction and creatinine level. Two groups were built according to the surgery performed by the AT (Group AT) or by the surgeons not on the AT (Group No-AT). The comparison of the groups showed no relevant differences regarding the preoperative characteristics, especially compromised consciousness, malperfusion and extent of dissection. Yet, the outcomes in Group AT vs No-AT were significantly different presenting AO: 8.0 vs 34.5% (P < 0.0001), in-hospital mortality: 4.0 vs and 21.8% (P < 0.001), new permanent neurological deficit: 2.7 vs 11.5% (P = 0.03), even if valve-sparing repairs and complete arch replacements were much more frequent in Group AT. The groups also differed considerably in regard to cannulation and perfusion management, which might play a decisive role in surgical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic repair in acute type A dissection, when performed by highly specialized aortic surgeons, offers not only much better outcomes but also provides significantly higher rate of curative albeit valve-sparing aortic repairs. Patient-centred care in referral aortic centres with surgery performed by specialized teams should be striven for to improve surgical results in acute aortic dissection surgery.
Authors: Nicholas D Andersen; Ehsan Benrashid; Adia K Ross; Lisa C Pickett; Peter K Smith; Mani A Daneshmand; Jacob N Schroder; Jeffrey G Gaca; G Chad Hughes Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2016-05
Authors: R Scott McClure; Maral Ouzounian; Munir Boodhwani; Ismail El-Hamamsy; Michael W A Chu; Zlatko Pozeg; Francois Dagenais; Khokan C Sikdar; Jehangir J Appoo Journal: Aorta (Stamford) Date: 2017-04-01
Authors: Alex Bottle; Giovanni Mariscalco; Matthew A Shaw; Umberto Benedetto; Athanasios Saratzis; Silvia Mariani; Mohamad Bashir; Paul Aylin; David Jenkins; Aung Y Oo; Gavin J Murphy Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 5.501