Peter Chiu1, Jeffrey Trojan2, Sarah Tsou2, Andrew B Goldstone1, Y Joseph Woo2, Michael P Fischbein3. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif; Division of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif. Electronic address: mfischbe@stanford.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Management of the aortic root is a challenge for surgeons treating acute type A aortic dissection. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the acute type A aortic dissection experience at Stanford Hospital between 2005 and 2015 and identified patients who underwent either limited root repair or aortic root replacement. Differences in baseline characteristics were balanced with inverse probability weighting to estimate the average treatment effect on the controls. Weighted logistic regression was used to evaluate in-hospital mortality. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate differences in the hazard for mid-term death. Reoperation was evaluated with death as a competing risk with the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard. RESULTS: After we excluded patients managed either nonoperatively or with definitive endovascular repair, there were 293 patients without connective tissue disease who underwent either limited root repair or aortic root replacement. There was no difference in weighted perioperative mortality, odds ratio 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.76, P = .7), and there was no difference in weighted survival, hazard ratio 1.12 (95% CI, 0.54-2.31, P = .8). Risk of reoperation was greater in limited root repair (11.8%, 95% CI, 0.0%-23.8%) than for root replacement (0%), P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: Limited root repair was associated with increased risk of late reoperation after repair of acute type A aortic dissection. Surgeons with adequate experience may consider aortic root replacement in well-selected patients. However, given good outcomes after limited root repair, surgeons should not feel compelled to perform this more-complex operation.
OBJECTIVE: Management of the aortic root is a challenge for surgeons treating acute type A aortic dissection. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the acute type A aortic dissection experience at Stanford Hospital between 2005 and 2015 and identified patients who underwent either limited root repair or aortic root replacement. Differences in baseline characteristics were balanced with inverse probability weighting to estimate the average treatment effect on the controls. Weighted logistic regression was used to evaluate in-hospital mortality. Weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate differences in the hazard for mid-term death. Reoperation was evaluated with death as a competing risk with the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard. RESULTS: After we excluded patients managed either nonoperatively or with definitive endovascular repair, there were 293 patients without connective tissue disease who underwent either limited root repair or aortic root replacement. There was no difference in weighted perioperative mortality, odds ratio 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-1.76, P = .7), and there was no difference in weighted survival, hazard ratio 1.12 (95% CI, 0.54-2.31, P = .8). Risk of reoperation was greater in limited root repair (11.8%, 95% CI, 0.0%-23.8%) than for root replacement (0%), P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: Limited root repair was associated with increased risk of late reoperation after repair of acute type A aortic dissection. Surgeons with adequate experience may consider aortic root replacement in well-selected patients. However, given good outcomes after limited root repair, surgeons should not feel compelled to perform this more-complex operation.
Authors: J F Sabik; B W Lytle; E H Blackstone; P M McCarthy; F D Loop; D M Cosgrove Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Douglas R Johnston; Edward G Soltesz; Nakul Vakil; Jeevanantham Rajeswaran; Eric E Roselli; Joseph F Sabik; Nicholas G Smedira; Lars G Svensson; Bruce W Lytle; Eugene H Blackstone Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jessica G Y Luc; Miriam Shanks; Benjamin D Tyrrell; Robert C Welsh; Craig R Butler; Steven R Meyer Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Bartosz Rylski; Joseph E Bavaria; Rita K Milewski; Prashanth Vallabhajosyula; William Moser; Emily Kremens; Alberto Pochettino; Wilson Y Szeto; Nimesh D Desai Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: J E Bavaria; A Pochettino; D R Brinster; R C Gorman; M L McGarvey; J H Gorman; A Escherich; T J Gardner Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Danny Dvir; John G Webb; Sabine Bleiziffer; Miralem Pasic; Ron Waksman; Susheel Kodali; Marco Barbanti; Azeem Latib; Ulrich Schaefer; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Hendrik Treede; Nicolo Piazza; David Hildick-Smith; Dominique Himbert; Thomas Walther; Christian Hengstenberg; Henrik Nissen; Raffi Bekeredjian; Patrizia Presbitero; Enrico Ferrari; Amit Segev; Arend de Weger; Stephan Windecker; Neil E Moat; Massimo Napodano; Manuel Wilbring; Alfredo G Cerillo; Stephen Brecker; Didier Tchetche; Thierry Lefèvre; Federico De Marco; Claudia Fiorina; Anna Sonia Petronio; Rui C Teles; Luca Testa; Jean-Claude Laborde; Martin B Leon; Ran Kornowski Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bo Yang; Elizabeth L Norton; Reilly Hobbs; Linda Farhat; Xiaoting Wu; Whitney E Hornsby; Karen M Kim; Himanshu J Patel; G Michael Deeb Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 5.209