Background: Acute aortic dissection compresses diagnosis, transfer, and operative readiness into a narrow time window in which hospital capability may influence survival. Yet U.S. studies define specialized or high-volume care inconsistently, limiting translation of the literature into actionable regionalization criteria. We reviewed U.S. evidence comparing outcomes for acute aortic dissection across hospitals categorized by procedural volume or center specialization. Methods: We performed a PRISMA-aligned systematic review with narrative synthesis. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL for English-language, peer-reviewed studies published from January 2000 through July 2025. Eligible studies included adult U.S. cohorts with acute aortic dissection and reported outcomes stratified by hospital volume tier or center designation. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted study characteristics, exposure definitions, analytic approach, and outcomes. We assessed quality to inform interpretation. Results: Searches identified 457 records, and 7 observational U.S. studies met eligibility criteria. Across most studies, higher-volume or specialized-center care was associated with lower in-hospital or 30-day mortality. Two studies showed no meaningful difference. Hospital length of stay was often longer in higher-volume strata. Neurologic complications were inconsistently associated with the center category. Definitions and thresholds used to denote “high volume” or “aortic center” varied substantially across studies. Conclusions: In U.S. observational data, higher-volume or specialized-center care for acute aortic dissection is most consistently associated with improved short-term survival, whereas secondary outcomes are heterogeneous. A major barrier to implementation is definitional inconsistency. Future work should pair transparent volume thresholds with explicit, measurable system capabilities.
Okraku-Yirenkyi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.