Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective review reveals high in-hospital mortality alongside durable long-term repair in iatrogenic type A dissection, highlighting the severity of this procedural complication.
Background Iatrogenic type A aortic dissection is a rare complication of surgical and nonsurgical cardiac procedures associated with high morbidity. The purpose of this study was to describe the intraoperative incidence, surgical management, and outcomes of iatrogenic type A dissections at our institution. Methods Retrospective review of our institution's adult cardiac surgery database was performed between 2002 and 2018 to identify all iatrogenic type A aortic dissection repairs. Operative reports were reviewed for cause of dissection and repair strategy. Follow-up surveillance for mortality and need for aortic reintervention was queried as available. Results Overall, 36 patients undergoing iatrogenic type A repairs were identified (cardiac surgical incidence, 0.1%). Of these, 23 (63.9%) were related to open operation, 5 (13.9%) to percutaneous coronary interventions, 5 (13.9%) to thoracic endovascular repairs, and 3 (8.3%) to other endovascular procedures. Most patients underwent hemiarch repairs under circulatory arrest (28/36 [77.8%]), whereas total arch repair was required in 5 of 36 (13.9%). Among all patients, in-hospital mortality was 36.1% (13/36). Those who survived to discharge had low subsequent mortality, with no differences between endovascular and surgical causes ( P = .797). On median follow-up of 3.1 years, need for redo aortic surgery was limited to 4 (11.1%) patients, all successfully treated with endovascular therapy. Conclusions Iatrogenic type A dissections represent a rare but serious complication of cardiac procedures, with high in-hospital mortality for those undergoing surgical repair. A repair strategy involving an open distal anastomosis and proximal root reconstruction ensures durable freedom from need for redo surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iyengar et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: