BACKGROUND: : Stanford A acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening emergency associated with major morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of three different surgical approaches in patients with Stanford A AAD. METHODS: : From January 2006 to March 2015 a total of 240 consecutive patients with diagnosed Stanford A AAD underwent elective, isolated surgical aortic repair in our centre. Patients were divided into three groups according to the extent of surgical repair: isolated replacement of the ascending aorta, hemiarch replacement and total arch replacement. Patients were followed up for up to 9 years. After univariate analysis multinomial logistic regression was performed for subgroup analysis. Baseline characteristics and endpoints as well as long-term survival were analysed. RESULTS: : There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of demographics and preoperative baseline and clinical characteristics. Incidence of in-hospital stroke ( p = 0.034), need for reopening due to bleeding ( p = 0.031) and in-hospital mortality ( p = 0.017) increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. There was no statistical difference in terms of long-term survival ( p = 0.166) among the three groups. Applying multinomial logistic regression for subgroup analysis significantly higher odds for stroke ( p = 0.023), reopening for bleeding ( p = 0.010) and in-hospital mortality ( p = 0.009) for the arch surgery group in comparison to the ascending aorta surgery group as well as significantly higher odds for stroke ( p = 0.029) for the total arch surgery group in comparison to the hemiarch surgery group were identified. CONCLUSIONS: : With Stanford A AAD the incidence of perioperative complications increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. Subgroup analysis and long-term follow up in patients undergoing isolated ascending or hemiarch surgery showed a lower incidence of cerebrovascular events compared with surgery for total arch replacement.
BACKGROUND: : Stanford A acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening emergency associated with major morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of three different surgical approaches in patients with Stanford A AAD. METHODS: : From January 2006 to March 2015 a total of 240 consecutive patients with diagnosed Stanford A AAD underwent elective, isolated surgical aortic repair in our centre. Patients were divided into three groups according to the extent of surgical repair: isolated replacement of the ascending aorta, hemiarch replacement and total arch replacement. Patients were followed up for up to 9 years. After univariate analysis multinomial logistic regression was performed for subgroup analysis. Baseline characteristics and endpoints as well as long-term survival were analysed. RESULTS: : There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of demographics and preoperative baseline and clinical characteristics. Incidence of in-hospital stroke ( p = 0.034), need for reopening due to bleeding ( p = 0.031) and in-hospital mortality ( p = 0.017) increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. There was no statistical difference in terms of long-term survival ( p = 0.166) among the three groups. Applying multinomial logistic regression for subgroup analysis significantly higher odds for stroke ( p = 0.023), reopening for bleeding ( p = 0.010) and in-hospital mortality ( p = 0.009) for the arch surgery group in comparison to the ascending aorta surgery group as well as significantly higher odds for stroke ( p = 0.029) for the total arch surgery group in comparison to the hemiarch surgery group were identified. CONCLUSIONS: : With Stanford A AAD the incidence of perioperative complications increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. Subgroup analysis and long-term follow up in patients undergoing isolated ascending or hemiarch surgery showed a lower incidence of cerebrovascular events compared with surgery for total arch replacement.
Authors: Raimund Erbel; Victor Aboyans; Catherine Boileau; Eduardo Bossone; Roberto Di Bartolomeo; Holger Eggebrecht; Arturo Evangelista; Volkmar Falk; Herbert Frank; Oliver Gaemperli; Martin Grabenwöger; Axel Haverich; Bernard Iung; Athanasios John Manolis; Folkert Meijboom; Christoph A Nienaber; Marco Roffi; Hervé Rousseau; Udo Sechtem; Per Anton Sirnes; Regula S von Allmen; Christiaan J M Vrints Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 29.983
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: Joseph E Bavaria; Derek R Brinster; Robert C Gorman; Y Joseph Woo; Thomas Gleason; Alberto Pochettino Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Dhaval Trivedi; Forozan Navid; Jeffrey R Balzer; Rama Joshi; Joan M Lacomis; Tudor G Jovin; Andrew D Althouse; Thomas G Gleason Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Arash Mehdiani; Yukiharu Sugimura; Louise Wollgarten; Moritz Benjamin Immohr; Sebastian Bauer; Hubert Schelzig; Markus Udo Wagenhäuser; Gerald Antoch; Artur Lichtenberg; Payam Akhyari Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-07-14