Key result
Conservative root repair shows similar mortality and survival to aggressive replacement in acute type A dissection.
Why the study?
This study aimed to assess early- and mid-term outcomes of aortic root repair versus replacement to improve root management in acute type A aortic dissection.
Does conservative root repair compared to aggressive root replacement improve outcomes in patients with acute type A aortic dissection?
Cohort (n=455)
Does conservative root repair compared to aggressive root replacement improve outcomes in patients with acute type A aortic dissection?
Both conservative root repair and aggressive root replacement are appropriate surgical options for acute type A aortic dissection with comparable mid-term survival and reintervention rates.
Supports either conservative or aggressive root management in acute type A aortic dissection; leaves open randomized confirmation of equivalence.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the early- and mid-term outcomes of aortic root repair and replacement, and to provide evidence to improve root management in acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD). METHODS: This study enrolled 455 patients who underwent AAAD root repair (n = 307) or replacement (n = 148) between January 2016 and December 2017. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to control for treatment selection bias. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, mid-term survival, and proximal aortic reintervention. RESULTS: The success rate of root repair was 99.7%. The in-hospital mortality in the conservative root repair (CRR) and aggressive root replacement (ARR) were 8.1% and 10.8%. The median follow-up time was 67.76 months (IQR, 67-72 months). After adjusting for baseline factors, there was no significant differences in mid-term survival (p = .750) or the proximal aortic reintervention rate (p = .550) between the two groups. According to Cox analysis, age, hypertension, severe aortic regurgitation, CPB time, and concomitant CABG were all factors associated with mid-term mortality. Regarding reintervention, multivariate analysis identified renal insufficiency, bicuspid aortic valve, root diameter ≥ 45 mm, and severe aortic regurgitation as risk factors, while CRR did not increase the risk of reintervention. The subgroup analysis revealed heterogeneity in the effects of surgical treatment across diverse populations based on a variety of risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with AAAD, both CRR and ARR are appropriate operations with promising early and mid-term outcomes. The effects of treatment show heterogeneity across diverse populations based on various risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) (n=455). Conservative root repair vs. Aggressive root replacement was evaluated on in-hospital mortality, mid-term survival, and proximal aortic reintervention. Conservative root repair for acute type A aortic dissection resulted in similar in-hospital mortality (8.1% vs 10.8%) and mid-term survival (p=0.750) compared to aggressive root replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: