Why the study?
The long-term survival results and determinants of recurrent aortic regurgitation after conservative aortic valve-sparing surgery for type A acute aortic dissection remain unclear.
Cohort (n=50)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 2.29% vs 1.58%
p-value: p=0.028
OBJECTIVE: In case of concomitant aortic regurgitation (AR) valve, sparing operation is considered the first choice in selected patients. The aim of this retrospective clinical and echocardiographic study was to evaluate the long-term survival results of conservative approach and the determinants of recurrent AR. METHODS: From 2000 to 2011, fifty patients (median: 63 years and interquartile range: 53-72) underwent an aortic valve-sparing procedure for acute aortic dissection, and discharged alive. The long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcome was analyzed. RESULTS: = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative AR and late aortic root diameter were not the predictors of late AR. Late AR is higher in patients who underwent aortic commissures and cusps resuspension compared to the only replacement of the ascending aorta.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chiara et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Stanford type A acute aortic dissection (n=50). Aortic cusp resuspension vs. Replacement of the ascending aorta alone was evaluated on Late recurrent aortic regurgitation (AR) grade (p=0.028).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: