Key result
Hemiarch reconstruction with concomitant TEVAR yielded similar in-hospital/30-day mortality compared to total arch replacement (13% vs 26%, P=0.3) and increased false lumen thrombosis (85% vs 43%).
Why the study?
Does hemiarch replacement with concomitant antegrade TEVAR improve outcomes compared to total arch replacement in patients with acute DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear?
Cohort (n=61)
No
Does hemiarch replacement with concomitant antegrade TEVAR improve outcomes compared to total arch replacement in patients with acute DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear?
Hemiarch replacement with concomitant TEVAR is a safe alternative to total arch replacement for acute DeBakey I aortic dissection, offering shorter bypass times and improved distal aortic remodeling.
Hemiarch with TEVAR was associated with similar mortality and higher false lumen thrombosis; leaves open its role versus total arch replacement in DeBakey I dissection.
OBJECTIVES: For acute DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear, conventional distal reconstruction entails total arch replacement (TAR). Some surgeons at our institution have utilized an alternative reconstructive strategy-primary arch tear repair and transverse hemiarch reconstruction (THR) with concomitant antegrade thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). We assessed early and mid-term outcomes comparing these two surgical strategies for arch tear management. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional aortic dissection database was carried out to compare early and mid-term outcomes for patients undergoing intervention for DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear. Hemiarch reconstruction with concomitant antegrade TEVAR was compared against conventional TAR. Arch tear at the origin of great vessels or greater curve was primarily repaired with interrupted sutures in TEVAR patients. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2013, 61 of 284 DeBakey I aortic dissection patients undergoing intervention for arch tear were retrospectively reviewed. Thirty-one patients had TAR (TAR group) and 30 patients had hemiarch + TEVAR (TEVAR group). Demographics and clinical presentation were similar. TEVAR group had more patients presenting in cardiogenic shock [3% (n = 1) vs 13% (n = 4), P = 0.2] and tamponade [10% (n = 3) vs 23% (n = 7), P = 0.2]. Intraoperatively, TEVAR group had lower cardiopulmonary bypass (239 ± 34 vs 313 ± 80 min, p0.001) and circulatory arrest (60 ± 15 vs 78 ± 45 min, P = 0.04) times. TAR group had higher in-hospital/30-day mortality [26% (n = 8) vs 13% (n = 4), P = 0.3], but stroke rates were similar [6% (n = 2) vs 7% (n = 2), P = 1]. One-year (80 ± 7.3 vs 71 ± 8.3%), 3-year (73 ± 8.3 vs 67 ± 8.6%) and 5-year (73 ± 8.3 vs 67 ± 8.6%) actuarial survival were improved in TEVAR group, although not significantly (log-rank, P = 0.56). TEVAR promoted increased false lumen thrombosis (43 vs 85%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In treating DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear, hemiarch replacement with primary tear repair and concomitant TEVAR is a safe alternative to conventional TAR, with improved distal aortic remodelling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vallabhajosyula et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in Acute DeBakey I aortic dissection with arch tear (n=61). Hemiarch reconstruction with concomitant antegrade TEVAR vs. Conventional total arch replacement (TAR) was evaluated on In-hospital/30-day mortality (p=0.3). Hemiarch reconstruction with concomitant TEVAR yielded similar in-hospital/30-day mortality compared to total arch replacement (13% vs 26%, P=0.3) and increased false lumen thrombosis (85% vs 43%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: