Panagiotis T Tasoudis1,2, Dimitrios E Magouliotis3,4, Dimitrios N Varvoglis1,2, Ioannis A Ziogas2, Mohammad Yousuf Salmasi5, Konstantinos Spanos6, Antonios Kourliouros7, Miltiadis Matsagkas6, Athanasios Giannoukas6, Thanos Athanasiou5,8. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. 2. Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. dimitrios.magouliotis.18@ucl.ac.uk. 4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Larissa, Biopolis, 41110, Larissa, Greece. dimitrios.magouliotis.18@ucl.ac.uk. 5. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK. 6. Department of Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. 7. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK. 8. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital of Larissa, Biopolis, 41110, Larissa, Greece.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of proximal repair (PR) versus extensive repair (ER) for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: A literature search in three databases was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Studies comparing PR versus ER for ATAAD were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies incorporating 7113 patients (PR: 5080; ER: 2033) were included. Patients undergoing PR presented decreased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.67 [95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.53-0.85]; p < 0.01) and post-operative bleeding (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.60-0.95]; p = 0.02) compared to ER. Meta-regression analysis revealed that in-hospital mortality was not influenced by differences regarding the extent of dissection (p = 0.43). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (SMD:-0.93 [95% CI - 1.22, - 0.66]; p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (SMD:-0.19 [95% CI - 0.34, - 0.05]; p = 0.01) were also lower in the PR group, while there was no difference in terms of renal failure and permanent neurological deficit. The ER approach demonstrated a lower post-discharge mortality compared to PR (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.09, 1.97]; p = 0.01), while the post-discharge reoperation rate was comparable between the two groups. 1 and 3-year overall survival (OS) were comparable between PR and ER (OR 1.05, [95% CI 0.77-1.44]; p = 0.76) and (OR 1.27 [95% CI 0.86-1.86]; p = 0.23), respectively. The 5-year OS (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.16-2.41]; p = 0.01) was in favor of the PR arm. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ATAAD, PR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality but higher odds of late mortality. ER and PR demonstrated similar post-operative complication and reoperation rates.
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of proximal repair (PR) versus extensive repair (ER) for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: A literature search in three databases was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Studies comparing PR versus ER for ATAAD were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies incorporating 7113 patients (PR: 5080; ER: 2033) were included. Patients undergoing PR presented decreased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.67 [95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.53-0.85]; p < 0.01) and post-operative bleeding (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.60-0.95]; p = 0.02) compared to ER. Meta-regression analysis revealed that in-hospital mortality was not influenced by differences regarding the extent of dissection (p = 0.43). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (SMD:-0.93 [95% CI - 1.22, - 0.66]; p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (SMD:-0.19 [95% CI - 0.34, - 0.05]; p = 0.01) were also lower in the PR group, while there was no difference in terms of renal failure and permanent neurological deficit. The ER approach demonstrated a lower post-discharge mortality compared to PR (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.09, 1.97]; p = 0.01), while the post-discharge reoperation rate was comparable between the two groups. 1 and 3-year overall survival (OS) were comparable between PR and ER (OR 1.05, [95% CI 0.77-1.44]; p = 0.76) and (OR 1.27 [95% CI 0.86-1.86]; p = 0.23), respectively. The 5-year OS (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.16-2.41]; p = 0.01) was in favor of the PR arm. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ATAAD, PR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality but higher odds of late mortality. ER and PR demonstrated similar post-operative complication and reoperation rates.
Authors: Magnus Larsen; Santi Trimarchi; Himanshu J Patel; Marco Di Eusanio; Kevin L Greason; Mark D Peterson; Rossella Fattori; Stuart Hutchison; Nimesh D Desai; Amit Korach; Daniel G Montgomery; Eric M Isselbacher; Christoph A Nienaber; Kim A Eagle; Kristian Bartnes; Truls Myrmel Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Jerry Easo; Ernst Weigang; Philipp P F Hölzl; Michael Horst; Isabell Hoffmann; Maria Blettner; Otto E Dapunt Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Arnar Geirsson; Joseph E Bavaria; Daniel Swarr; Martin G Keane; Y Joseph Woo; Wilson Y Szeto; Alberto Pochettino Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.330