Key result
Total arch replacement for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection showed similar operative mortality (13.0% vs 7.7%, p=0.096) and 5-year survival (77.8% vs 72.6%, p=0.14) to partial replacement.
Why the study?
To examine early and midterm outcomes after surgical treatment of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection and assess how the extent of aortic arch replacement affects overall survival and prevention of distal aortic events.
Does total arch replacement improve survival and prevent distal aortic events compared to hemi- or partial arch replacement in patients with acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection?
Cohort (n=374)
Does total arch replacement improve survival and prevent distal aortic events compared to hemi- or partial arch replacement in patients with acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection?
Absolute Event Rate: 13% vs 7.7%
p-value: p=0.096
Total arch replacement for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection may improve 5-year freedom from reoperations and distal aortic events compared to partial arch replacement when adjusting for patient background.
TAR may reduce distal events after AIAD repair; leaves open survival benefit and requires prospective trials.
The goal of this study is to examine early and midterm results after surgical treatment of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection (AIAD) and the effect of the range of aortic arch replacement on overall survival and prevention of distal aortic events. Between March 2002 and July 2020, a total of 374 AIAD aortic repairs were reviewed. A total of 154 (41.2%) patients had total arch replacement (TAR), whereas 220 (58.8%) had hemi- or partial arch replacement (PAR). Operative mortality did not show a significant difference (7.7% in PAR, 13.0% in TAR, p = 0.096). Survival at 5 years showed no difference (77.8% in TAR, 72.6% in PAR, p = 0.14). Freedom from reoperations and reinterventions, as well as composite aortic events in the distal aorta, were comparable across groups (p = 0.21, 0.84, and 0.91, respectively). The inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted model displayed higher 5-year freedom from reoperations and aortic events in the TAR group (p = 0.029 and 0.054, respectively). The extent of arch replacement is determined based on the patient background, making it difficult to compare the superiority of both surgical methods. However, TAR for appropriately selected patients may provide the benefit of avoiding aortic events in the long term.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miyahara et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection (AIAD) (n=374). Total arch replacement (TAR) vs. Hemi- or partial arch replacement (PAR) was evaluated on Operative mortality (p=0.096). Total arch replacement for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection showed similar operative mortality (13.0% vs 7.7%, p=0.096) and 5-year survival (77.8% vs 72.6%, p=0.14) to partial replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: