Elizabeth L Norton1, Xiaoting Wu2, Karen M Kim2, Shinichi Fukuhara2, Himanshu J Patel2, G Michael Deeb2, Bo Yang3. 1. Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Neb. 2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Mich. 3. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Mich. Electronic address: boya@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to determine if hemiarch replacement is an adequate arch management strategy for patients with acute type A aortic dissection and arch branch vessel dissection but no cerebral malperfusion. METHODS: From January 2008 to August 2019, 479 patients underwent open acute type A aortic dissection repair. After excluding those with aggressive arch replacement (n = 168), cerebral malperfusion syndrome (n = 34), and indeterminable arch branch vessel dissection (n = 1), 276 patients with an acute type A aortic dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome who underwent hemiarch replacement comprised this study. Patients were then divided into those with arch branch vessel dissection (n = 133) and those with no arch branch vessel dissection (n = 143). RESULTS: The median age of the entire cohort was 62 years, with the arch branch vessel dissection group being younger (60 vs 62 years, P = .048). Both groups had similar aortic arch and descending thoracic aortic diameters, with significantly more DeBakey type I dissections (100% vs 80%) in the arch branch vessel dissection group. The arch branch vessel dissection group had more aortic root replacement (36% vs 27%, P = .0035) and longer aortic crossclamp times (153 vs 128 minutes, P = .007). Postoperative outcomes were similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups, including stroke (10% vs 5%, P = .12) and operative morality (7% vs 5%, P = .51). The arch branch vessel dissection group had a significantly greater cumulative incidence of reoperation (8-year: 19% vs 4%, P = .04) with a hazard ratio of 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-8.27; P = .048), which was similar between groups among only DeBakey type I dissections (8-year: 19% vs 5%, P = .11). The 8-year survival was similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups (76% vs 74%, P = .30). CONCLUSIONS: Hemiarch replacement was adequate for patients with acute type A aortic dissection with arch branch vessel dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome, but carried a higher risk of late reoperation.
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to determine if hemiarch replacement is an adequate arch management strategy for patients with acute type A aortic dissection and arch branch vessel dissection but no cerebral malperfusion. METHODS: From January 2008 to August 2019, 479 patients underwent open acute type A aortic dissection repair. After excluding those with aggressive arch replacement (n = 168), cerebral malperfusion syndrome (n = 34), and indeterminable arch branch vessel dissection (n = 1), 276 patients with an acute type A aortic dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome who underwent hemiarch replacement comprised this study. Patients were then divided into those with arch branch vessel dissection (n = 133) and those with no arch branch vessel dissection (n = 143). RESULTS: The median age of the entire cohort was 62 years, with the arch branch vessel dissection group being younger (60 vs 62 years, P = .048). Both groups had similar aortic arch and descending thoracic aortic diameters, with significantly more DeBakey type I dissections (100% vs 80%) in the arch branch vessel dissection group. The arch branch vessel dissection group had more aortic root replacement (36% vs 27%, P = .0035) and longer aortic crossclamp times (153 vs 128 minutes, P = .007). Postoperative outcomes were similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups, including stroke (10% vs 5%, P = .12) and operative morality (7% vs 5%, P = .51). The arch branch vessel dissection group had a significantly greater cumulative incidence of reoperation (8-year: 19% vs 4%, P = .04) with a hazard ratio of 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-8.27; P = .048), which was similar between groups among only DeBakey type I dissections (8-year: 19% vs 5%, P = .11). The 8-year survival was similar between the arch branch vessel dissection and no arch branch vessel dissection groups (76% vs 74%, P = .30). CONCLUSIONS: Hemiarch replacement was adequate for patients with acute type A aortic dissection with arch branch vessel dissection without cerebral malperfusion syndrome, but carried a higher risk of late reoperation.
Authors: Robert D Rice; Harleen K Sandhu; Samuel S Leake; Rana O Afifi; Ali Azizzadeh; Kristofer M Charlton-Ouw; Tom C Nguyen; Charles C Miller; Hazim J Safi; Anthony L Estrera Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Antonio Lio; Francesca Nicolò; Emanuele Bovio; Andrea Serrao; Jacob Zeitani; Antonio Scafuri; Luigi Chiariello; Giovanni Ruvolo Journal: Tex Heart Inst J Date: 2016-12-01
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
Authors: Bo Yang; Himanshu J Patel; Claire Sorek; Whitney E Hornsby; Xiaoting Wu; Sarah Ward; Marc Thomas; Anisa Driscoll; Victoria A Waidley; Elizabeth L Norton; Donald S Likosky; G Michael Deeb Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Bo Yang; Carlo Maria Rosati; Elizabeth L Norton; Karen M Kim; Minhaj S Khaja; Narasimham Dasika; Xiaoting Wu; Whitney E Hornsby; Himanshu J Patel; G Michael Deeb; David M Williams Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elizabeth L Norton; Xiaoting Wu; Linda Farhat; Karen M Kim; Himanshu J Patel; G Michael Deeb; Bo Yang Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Bo Yang; Aroosa Malik; Victoria Waidley; Kellianne C Kleeman; Xiaoting Wu; Elizabeth L Norton; David M Williams; Minhaj S Khaja; Whitney E Hornsby Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Paolo Berretta; Himanshu J Patel; Thomas G Gleason; Thoralf M Sundt; Truls Myrmel; Nimesh Desai; Amit Korach; Antonello Panza; Joe Bavaria; Ali Khoynezhad; Elise Woznicki; Dan Montgomery; Eric M Isselbacher; Roberto Di Bartolomeo; Rossella Fattori; Christoph A Nienaber; Kim A Eagle; Santi Trimarchi; Marco Di Eusanio Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2016-07
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
Authors: Fausto Biancari; Giovanni Mariscalco; Hakeem Yusuff; Geoffrey Tsang; Suvitesh Luthra; Francesco Onorati; Alessandra Francica; Cecilia Rossetti; Andrea Perrotti; Sidney Chocron; Antonio Fiore; Thierry Folliguet; Matteo Pettinari; Angelo M Dell'Aquila; Till Demal; Lenard Conradi; Christian Detter; Marek Pol; Peter Ivak; Filip Schlosser; Stefano Forlani; Govind Chetty; Amer Harky; Manoj Kuduvalli; Mark Field; Igor Vendramin; Ugolino Livi; Mauro Rinaldi; Luisa Ferrante; Christian Etz; Thilo Noack; Stefano Mastrobuoni; Laurent De Kerchove; Mikko Jormalainen; Steven Laga; Bart Meuris; Marc Schepens; Zein El Dean; Antti Vento; Peter Raivio; Michael Borger; Tatu Juvonen Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 1.637