Extended versus limited arch replacement in acute Type A aortic dissection

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The recommended extent of surgical resection and reconstruction of the arch in acute DeBakey Type I aortic dissection is an ongoing controversy. However, several recent reports indicate a trend towards a more extensive arch operation in several institutions. We have analysed the recent data from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection to assess the choice of procedure over time and to evaluate the surgical outcome in a 'real-world' database. Our aim was to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of limited repairs versus complete arch surgery.

METHODS: Of the 1241 patients included in the 'Interventional Cohort' of the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection from March 1996 to March 2015, 907 underwent ascending aortic or hemiarch replacement (Group A) and 334 had extended arch replacement (Group B). An extended resection was a surgeon's 'judgement call'. Logistic regression analysis, propensity-adjusted multivariable comparisons and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for analyses.

RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 14.2% with no difference between groups (Group A 13.1%, Group B 17.1%). Coma/altered consciousness (odds ratio 3.16, 95% confidence interval 1.60-6.25, P = 0.001), hypotension, tamponade or shock (2.03, 1.11-3.73, P = 0.022) and any pulse deficit (1.92, 1.04-3.54, P = 0.038) were predictors of in-hospital mortality in a propensity score-adjusted multivariable analysis. Overall 5-year survival was 69.4% in the ascending group and 73.1% in the total arch group (P = 0.83 by Kaplan-Meier analysis). For survivors of the index hospitalization, the 5-year freedom from death, aortic rupture and reintervention were 71.1% in Group A and 76.4% in Group B (P = 0.54 by Kaplan-Meier analysis).

CONCLUSIONS: Selective, or 'surgeon's choice', extended arch replacement had no discernible acute downside compared with less extensive surgery. Whether extended arch replacement improves the prognosis beyond 5 years remains to be settled.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1104-1110
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery
Volume52
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 1 2017

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Extended versus limited arch replacement in acute Type A aortic dissection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Larsen, M., Trimarchi, S., Patel, H. J., Di Eusanio, M., Greason, K. L., Peterson, M. D., Fattori, R., Hutchison, S., Desai, N. D., Korach, A., Montgomery, D. G., Isselbacher, E. M., Nienaber, C. A., Eagle, K. A., Bartnes, K., & Myrmel, T. (2017). Extended versus limited arch replacement in acute Type A aortic dissection. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 52(6), 1104-1110. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezx214