Quality of Life Following Surgery of Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch with Selective Antegrade Cerebral Perfusion

The Long-Term Outcome and Quality of Life after Replacement of the Ascending Aorta

(1) Background: Despite optimal surgical therapy, replacement of the ascending aorta leads to a significant reduction in the quality of life (QoL). However, an optimal result includes maintaining and improving the QoL. The aim of our study was to evaluate the long-term outcome and the QoL in patients with aneurysms in the ascending aorta; (2) Methods: Between 2014 and 2020, 121 consecutive patients who underwent replacement of the ascending aorta were included in this study. Acute aortic pathologies were excluded. A standard short form (SF)-36 questionnaire was sent to the 112 survivors. According to the surgical procedure, patients were divided into two groups (A: supracoronary replacement of the aorta, n = 35 and B: Wheat-, David- or Bentall-procedures, n = 86). The QoL was compared within these groups and to the normal population, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery disease (CAD) and cancer (CAN) patients; (3) Results: 83 patients were males (68.6%) with a mean age of 62.0 ± 12.5 years. Early postoperative outcomes showed comparable results between groups A and B, with a higher re-thoracotomy rate in B (A: 0.0% vs. B: 22.1%, p = 0.002). The 30-day mortality was zero. Overall, mortality during the follow-up was 7.4%. The SF-36 showed a significant decay in both the Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) in comparison to the normal population (PCS: 41.1 vs. 48.4, p < 0.001; MCS: 42.1 vs. 50.9, p < 0.001) but without significant difference between both groups. Compared to the MI and CAD patients, significantly higher PCS but lower MCS scores were detected (p < 0.05); (4) Conclusions: Replacement of the ascending aorta shows low risk regarding the operative and postoperative outcomes with satisfying long-term results in the QoL. The extent of the surgical procedure does not influence the postoperative QoL.

Perceived Need for Psychosocial Support After Aortic Dissection: Cross-Sectional Survey

Background

The gold standard management of aortic dissection, a life-threatening condition, includes multidisciplinary approaches. Although mental distress following aortic dissection is common, evidence-based psychosocial interventions for aortic dissection survivors are lacking.

Objective

The aim of this study is to identify the perceived psychosocial needs of aortic dissection survivors by surveying patients, their relatives, and health professionals to inform the development of such interventions.

Methods

This study used a cross-sectional survey and collected responses from 41 participants (27 patients with aortic dissection, 8 relatives of patients with aortic dissection, and 6 health professionals) on key topics, types of interventions, best timing, anticipated success, and the intended effects and side effects of psychosocial interventions after aortic dissection.

Results

The principal intervention topics were “changes in everyday life” (28/41, 68%, 95% CI 54.5%-82.9%), “anxiety” (25/41, 61%, 95% CI 46.2%-76.2%), “uncertainty” (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 42.9%-73.2%), “tension/distress” (24/41, 59%, 95% CI 43.9%-73.8%), and “trust in the body” (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35.9%-67.5%). The most commonly indicated intervention types were “family/relative therapy” (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-65.9%) and “anxiety treatment” (21/41, 51%, 95% CI 35%-67.5%). The most recommended intervention timing was “during inpatient rehabilitation” (26/41, 63%, 95% CI 47.6%-77.5%) followed by “shortly after inpatient rehabilitation” (20/41, 49%, 95% CI 32.4%-65%). More than 95% (39/41) of respondents anticipated a benefit from psychosocial interventions following aortic dissection dissection, expecting a probable improvement in 68.6% (95% CI 61.4%-76.2%) of aortic dissection survivors, a worse outcome for 5% (95% CI 2.9%-7.9%), and that 6% (95% CI 1.8%-10.4%) would have negative side effects due to such interventions.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight a substantial need for psychosocial interventions in aortic dissection survivors and indicate that such interventions would be a success. They provide a basis for the development and evaluation of interventions as part of state-of-the-art aortic dissection management.