Key result
Concomitant root replacement shows no association with increased 30-day mortality in type A dissection repair.
Why the study?
The impact of concomitant aortic root replacement on early and late outcomes in patients undergoing total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk for type A aortic dissection required evaluation.
Does concomitant aortic root replacement safely improve or maintain early and late outcomes in patients undergoing total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk for type A aortic dissection?
Observational (n=1,155)
No
Does concomitant aortic root replacement safely improve or maintain early and late outcomes in patients undergoing total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk for type A aortic dissection?
Odds Ratio: 0.92 (95% CI 0.52–1.62)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.2% vs 8.4%
p-value: p=.769
Concomitant aortic root replacement during total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk for type A aortic dissection does not increase early mortality or major complications and is safe when anatomically indicated.
Concomitant root replacement may be considered without added 30-day mortality in selected patients; leaves open need for randomized confirmation in type A dissection.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the impact of concomitant aortic root replacement (ARR) on early and late outcomes in patients undergoing total arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) for type A aortic dissection (TAAD). METHODS: From January 2010 to December 2019, a total of 1155 patients were enrolled. Among them, 325 patients received concomitant ARR (with ARR group) while 830 patients did not (without ARR group). Baseline differences were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: After IPTW, the with ARR group still had a higher prevalence of Marfan syndrome (2.6% vs 7.3%, P = .038) and a greater proportion of patients with moderate or greater aortic insufficiency (18.1% vs 64.7%, P < .001). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and aortic cross-clamp time were significantly longer in with ARR group (CPB time: 180 [151-212] vs 197 [171-236] min, P < .001; cross-clamp time: 100 [83-120] vs 112 [95-135] min, P < .001). There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality and major complications. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that after adjustment for age, gender, variables with potential clinical correlation with outcomes and variables with P < .1 in univariable analysis, ARR was not associated with 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.52-1.62, P = .769). There was no significant difference in overall survival (log rank: P = .258) and proximal reintervention (log rank: P = .337) in follow-up between patients in with ARR group and without ARR group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAR with FET for TAAD, concomitant ARR did not increase early and late postoperative mortality or morbidity. ARR can be safely performed concurrently with TAR and FET when anatomically indicated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Type A Aortic Dissection (TAAD) (n=1,155). Concomitant aortic root replacement vs. Total arch replacement without aortic root replacement was evaluated on 30-day mortality (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52-1.62, p=.769). In patients undergoing total arch replacement for type A aortic dissection, concomitant aortic root replacement was not associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (OR 0.92) compared to no replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: