Type A acute aortic dissection repair during night time: is it safe?

Off-hours Surgery and Mortality in Patients With Type A Aortic Dissection Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The impact of off-hours admission (such as weekends, nighttime, and non-working hours) vs. regular hours (weekdays and daytime working hours) on the mortality risk of patients undergoing surgery for type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair is still uncertain. To address this uncertainty, we undertook a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. We aimed to assess the potential link between off-hours admission and the risk of mortality in patients undergoing TAAD repair surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, covering the period from their inception to May 20, 2023. Our inclusion criteria encompassed all studies that examined the potential relationship between off-hour admission and mortality in individuals who had undergone surgery for TAAD repair. The odds ratios (ORs) were extracted and combined utilizing a random effects model for our synthesis.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 16,501 patients undergoing TAAD repair surgery were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, patients who underwent surgery during the weekend had higher in-hospital mortality (pooled OR, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75; p=0.002) than those treated on weekdays. However, the mortality risks among patients who underwent TAAD surgery during nighttime and non-working hours were not significantly elevated compared to daytime and working hours admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekend surgery for TAAD was associated with a higher in-hospital mortality risk than weekday surgery. However, further studies are warranted to identify and develop strategies to improve the quality of round-the-clock care for patients with TAAD.

Acute type A aortic dissection in-hours versus out-of-hours: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare clinical outcomes in patients with acute type A aortic dissection that undergone surgical repair during in-hours (IH) versus out-of-hours (OOH).

METHODS

An electronic literature search was done till March 2020 to include studies with comparative cohorts of IH versus OOH. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, stroke, and reoperation for bleeding; secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, total hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay.

RESULTS

Six articles with a total of 3744 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was similar, 60 ± 12 versus 60 ± 13 in IH versus OOH (p = .25). Aortic root and total arch replacement were similar in both cohorts, 22% in IH versus 25% in OOH (risk ratio [RR], 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.78, 1.55]; p = .58) and 29% in IH versus 32% in OOH (RR, 0.96; 95% CI [0.89, 1.04], p = .37) respectively. Reoperation for bleeding and stroke rate were similar, with 18% in IH versus 23% in OOH (RR, 0.89; 95% CI [0.73, 1.08]; p = .24), and 12% in IH versus 13% in OOH (RR, 0.83; 95% CI [0.66, 1.03]; p = .09) respectively. Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower in IH (RR, 0.81; 95% CI [0.72, 0.90]; p = .0001).

CONCLUSION

There was higher 30-day mortality rate during OOH surgery, yet this difference diminished following sensitivity analysis. There were no significant differences in major postoperative outcomes. Therefore, operating on such cases should be decided on clinical priority without delay.