Key result
In propensity-matched patients with acute Type A aortic dissection, the David procedure showed no significant difference in 10-year mortality compared to the Bentall procedure (30.0% vs 43.9%, P=0.082).
Why the study?
When type A aortic dissection involves the aortic root, aortic valve-sparing or Bentall procedures are the main surgical options, but comparisons between them remain needed.
Does the David procedure improve 10-year mortality and reoperation rates compared to the Bentall procedure in patients with acute Type A aortic dissection?
Population
3735 patients in the European Registry of Type A Aortic Dissection
Comparison
David procedure vs Bentall procedure
Design
Multicenter propensity score-matched registry study
Follow-up
10 years
Authors
Loading...
Similar mid-term outcomes after matching support selective David use by experienced surgeons in acute TAAD; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm durability.
Cohort (n=3,735)
Yes
Does the David procedure improve 10-year mortality and reoperation rates compared to the Bentall procedure in patients with acute Type A aortic dissection?
Absolute Event Rate: 30% vs 43.9%
p-value: p=0.082
The David and Bentall procedures offer comparable durable outcomes for acute Type A aortic dissection, with no significant difference in 10-year mortality or reoperation rates after propensity matching.
Biancari et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection (n=3,735). David procedure vs. Bentall procedure was evaluated on 10-year mortality rate (p=0.082). In propensity-matched patients with acute Type A aortic dissection, the David procedure showed no significant difference in 10-year mortality compared to the Bentall procedure (30.0% vs 43.9%, P=0.082).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: