BACKGROUND:: Stanford A acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening emergency associated with major morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of three different surgical approaches in patients with Stanford A AAD. METHODS:: From January 2006 to March 2015 a total of 240 consecutive patients with diagnosed Stanford A AAD underwent elective, isolated surgical aortic repair in our centre. Patients were divided into three groups according to the extent of surgical repair: isolated replacement of the ascending aorta, hemiarch replacement and total arch replacement. Patients were followed up for up to 9 years. After univariate analysis multinomial logistic regression was performed for subgroup analysis. Baseline characteristics and endpoints as well as long-term survival were analysed. RESULTS:: There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of demographics and preoperative baseline and clinical characteristics. Incidence of in-hospital stroke ( p = 0.034), need for reopening due to bleeding ( p = 0.031) and in-hospital mortality ( p = 0.017) increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. There was no statistical difference in terms of long-term survival ( p = 0.166) among the three groups. Applying multinomial logistic regression for subgroup analysis significantly higher odds for stroke ( p = 0.023), reopening for bleeding ( p = 0.010) and in-hospital mortality ( p = 0.009) for the arch surgery group in comparison to the ascending aorta surgery group as well as significantly higher odds for stroke ( p = 0.029) for the total arch surgery group in comparison to the hemiarch surgery group were identified. CONCLUSIONS:: With Stanford A AAD the incidence of perioperative complications increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. Subgroup analysis and long-term follow up in patients undergoing isolated ascending or hemiarch surgery showed a lower incidence of cerebrovascular events compared with surgery for total arch replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Merkle et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: