Impact of ascending aortic, hemiarch and arch repair on early and long-term outcomes in patients with Stanford A acute aortic dissection

Clinical outcome of a branch-first approach with a novel continuous whole-brain perfusion strategy for total arch surgery

BACKGROUND

Cerebral protection strategies have been investigated since the introduction of aortic arch surgery and have been modified over the centuries. However, the cerebral protective effects of unilateral and bilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion are similar, with opportunities for further improvement.

METHODS

A total of 30 patients who underwent total arch surgery were enrolled in this study. Patients were assigned to the novel continuous whole-brain or unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion group according to the cerebral perfusion technique used. Preoperative clinical data and 1-year postoperative follow-up data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the incidence of permanent neurological deficit, mortality, or therapeutic efficacy. However, the incidence of temporary neurological dysfunction in the novel whole-brain perfusion group was significantly lower than that in the unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the branch-first approach with a novel whole-brain perfusion strategy had no obvious disadvantages compared with unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion in terms of cerebral protection and surgical safety. These findings suggest that this new technique is feasible and has application value for total arch surgery.

The Clinical Impact of the Extension of Acute Type A Aortic Surgery on Long-Term Outcomes: Should We Tend to Be Conservative?

Background and Objectives: Despite advances in surgical techniques, industry adjuncts, and cerebral perfusion techniques, the in-hospital mortality rate of type A acute dissection (TAAD) remains at 15-30%. This study aimed to investigate the influence of different extents of aortic resection on survival and quality of life (QoL) after long-term follow-up. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational trial was performed, including 165 patients operated upon for TAAD. Patients were divided into two groups according to the extent of their aortic repair: the first group comprised patients who had ascending aorta replacement and the second included patients who had hemiarch or total arch replacement. The groups were compared with regard to their baseline characteristics, operative characteristics, survival, complications, and QoL during nine years of follow-up. Results: The mean follow-up time was 75.6 months (1-108 months). The mean survival in the ascending aorta repair group was 89.651 (81.242-98.061) months and was 54.801 (40.053-69.548) months in the hemiarch and arch group; the difference between the groups was significant (log-rank p < 0.001). The rate of new postoperative neurological deficits was statistically higher in the hemiarch and arch group (17.5% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.045), the most common being stroke, and was also more frequent in the hemiarch and arch group than in the ascending aorta group (with statistical significance (15.7% vs. 6.5%)). The mean SF-12 physical score from the QoL questionnaire was higher in the ascending aorta replacement group than in the hemiarch and arch group (50.1 ± 7.3 vs. 44.0 ± 11.9, p = 0.017). Additionally, the mean SF-12 mental score was higher in the ascending aorta replacement group (52.3 ± 7.3 vs. 47.1 ± 12.8, p = 0.032). Conclusions: A more aggressive approach involving aortic arch repair means a lower survival rate and lesser quality of life after long-term follow-up in comparison with the replacement of the ascending aorta. If clinically applicable, a more defensive strategy may be considered.

Total aortic arch replacement in acute type A aortic dissection - a single institutional experience

Aim

Total arch replacement in the presence of acute aortic dissections is one of the most challenging areas of aortic surgery. Data on outcome in the Indian scenario is sparse. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of arch replacements in a single tertiary care center.

Material and methods

In this single-center experience, 20 patients underwent total arch replacement between 2012 and 2022. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were abstracted from hospital records. Only patients with acute type A aortic dissection needing an arch repair were included. Patients with hemi-arch repairs, hybrid repairs, and those operated upon due to aneurysmal disease were excluded from the study. Comparison was made between survivors and non-survivors. Temporal trends for the procedure were assessed.

Results

The study included 20 patients who underwent total aortic arch replacement (TAR) during the study period (2012-2022). The mean age was 49.3 ± 12.5 years, and 15 (75%) of the patients were males. Seven (35%) patients were operated within 24 h of symptom onset. Permanent stroke was seen in 1 (5%) patient and temporary neurological dysfunction was observed in 1 (5%) patient. The re-exploration rate was 6 (30%) in the entire cohort and in-hospital mortality was 4 (20%). Follow-up was complete in 18 (90%) of the study population and 14 (87.5%) among survivors. There was one late death in our study which occurred after 46 months of the index operation. The overall mean survival was 76.1 months (95% CI: 49.86-102.43).

Conclusion

TAR can be performed both with acceptable mortality and morbidity in the presence of acute aortic dissections.

Distal Aortic Progression After Hemiarch, Zones 1-3 Arch Replacement in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND

There is debate regarding aortic arch repair extent for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients.

METHODS

From 1996 to 2021, 756 ATAAD patients underwent open arch replacement. The cohort was divided into hemiarch (n = 481), zone 1 (n = 65), zone 2 (n = 148), and zone 3 (n = 62) arch replacement groups. Cross-group comparison of aortic growth was modeled using data from interval postoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the distal aorta.

RESULTS

Demographics were not significantly different except the hemiarch group had more coronary artery disease and less stroke. Intraoperatively, zones 1, 2, and 3 had greater cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermic circulatory arrest times and required more intraoperative blood transfusion than the hemiarch group. Perioperative outcomes were similar among groups except zone 3 had more reoperation for bleeding. Ten-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was hemiarch, 16.7%; zone 1, 16.3%; zone 2, 21.5%; and zone 3, 17.6% (P = .70). Ten-year survival was similar: hemiarch, 66%; zone 1, 60.3%; zone 2, 68.0%); and zone 3 66.1% (P = .20). Aortic arch, descending aorta, and abdominal aorta growth rates were not significantly different among groups over 10 years. In the whole cohort, the growth rate over time for aortic arch was 0.38 mm per year (P < .001), descending aorta 0.84 mm per year (P < .001), and abdominal aorta 0.69 mm per year (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in long-term survival, distal aorta growth, or reoperation rate for distal aortic aneurysm after hemiarch or zones 1, 2, or 3 arch replacement. Patient-specific arch replacement strategies may be used rather than defaulting to aggressive arch replacement for all ATAAD patients.

The effect of adding an open distal anastomosis to proximal aneurysm repairs in bicuspid aortopathy

OBJECTIVES

To determine the role of adding open distal anastomosis to proximal aortic aneurysm repairs in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review was performed of 1132 patients at our Aortic Center between 2005 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were all patients diagnosed with a BAV who underwent proximal aortic aneurysm repair with open or clamped distal anastomosis. Exclusion criteria were patients without a BAV, age < 18 years, aortic arch diameter ≥ 4.5 cm, type A aortic dissection, previous ascending aortic replacement, ruptured aneurysm, and endocarditis. Propensity score matching in a 2:1 ratio (220 clamped: 121 open repairs) on 18 variables was performed.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 45.6 months (range 7.2-143.4 months). In the matched groups, no significant differences were observed between the respective open and clamped distal anastomosis groups for Kaplan Meier 10-year survival (86.9% vs. 92.9%; p = 0.05) and landmark survival analysis after 1 year (90.6%; vs. 93.3%; p = 0.39). Overall incidence of aortic arch-related reintervention was low (n = 3 total events). In-hospital complications were not significantly different in the open with respect to the clamped repair group, including in-hospital mortality (2.5% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.13) and stroke (0% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.54). In multivariable analysis, open distal anastomosis repair was not associated with long-term mortality (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.98; p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

We found no significant inter-group differences in survival, reintervention, or in-hospital complication rates, with low rates of mortality, and aortic arch-related reintervention, suggesting adding open distal anastomosis may not provide benefit in BAV patients undergoing proximal aortic aneurysm repairs.

Long-term outcomes of total arch replacement versus proximal aortic replacement in acute type A aortic dissection: Meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of a conservative approach (with proximal aortic replacement with or without hemiarch replacement) versus an aggressive approach (with total aortic arch replacement) in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD).

METHODS

We performed a pooled analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data from studies with follow-up comparing the aforementioned approaches to treat patients with ATAAD.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising 5243 patients with follow-up (Conservative: 3676 patients; Aggressive: 1567 patients). We observed a statistically significant difference in overall survival favoring the aggressive approach (hazard ratios [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.98, p = .022), but no statistically significant difference in the risk of reoperation (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.2, p = .439) in the overall follow-up. Landmark analyses revealed that, in the first 3 months after the procedure, mortality rates were comparable between conservative and aggressive approaches (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.24, p = .627), but the results beyond 3 months showed improved survival in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, p < .001). The landmark analyses also revealed that, in the first 7 years after the procedure, reoperation rates were comparable between the approaches (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.40, p = .848), but the results beyond 7 years showed a lower risk of reoperation in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.75, p = .025).

CONCLUSION

The aggressive approach seems to confer better long-term survival and lower risk of the need for reoperation in the follow-up of patients treated for ATAAD.

Outcomes of hemi- vs. total arch replacement in acute type A aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Acute type A aortic dissections (ATAAD) pose a challenge to surgeons due to high mortality, and decision making regarding the appropriate procedure is controversial. This study compared the outcomes of hemiarch and total arch replacement for ATAAD.

Methods

The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for comparative studies on hemiarch versus total arch replacement that were published before May 1, 2022.

Results

We included 23 observational studies with a total of 4,576 patients. Combined data analysis showed that early mortality (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70–0.97; P = 0.02), incidence of postoperative permanent neurological dysfunction (RR = 0.72; 95%CI:0.54∼0.94; P = 0.02), and incidence of renal failure and dialysis (RR = 0.82; 95%CI:0.71∼0.96; P = 0.01) were all lower for hemiarch than for total arch replacement. However, hemiarch replacement had a higher rate of late mortality (RR = 1.37; 95%CI:1.10∼1.71; P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of re-operation for bleeding, aortic re-operation, or postoperative pneumonia.

Conclusion

In this study, hemiarch replacement had better early outcomes but a higher late mortality rate than total arch replacement. Decisions regarding the extent of arch repair should be made according to location and extent of ATAAD and the experience of surgeons to ensure the most favorable prognosis.

Systematic review registration:

[INPLASY.COM], identifier [INPLASY202250088].

Early Results of a Novel Hybrid Prosthesis for Treatment of Acute Aortic Dissection Type A With Distal Anastomosis Line Beyond Aortic Arch Zone Zero

Introduction

Acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) is associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. A novel non-covered hybrid prosthesis (Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent (AMDS) Hybrid Prosthesis, Cryolife/Jotec, Hechingen, Germany) can be easily implanted to stabilize the true lumen (TL), improve remodeling, and preserve organ perfusion. Although developed for implantation in aortic zone 0, occasionally, partial replacement of the aortic arch and further distal implantation of AMDS may appear favorable. Implantation of AMDS with anastomosis line beyond zone 0 has not been described yet.

Materials and Methods

Between 08/2019 and 12/2020, a total of n = 97 patients were treated due to AADA at a single University hospital. Of those, n = 28 received an AMDS hybrid prosthesis, of whom in eight patients, due to intraoperative finding the distal anastomosis line was placed distal to the brachiocephalic trunk. Three patients had AMDS implantation in zone I and four were treated by implantation of the prostheses in zone II, and one patient had the implantation performed in zone III. Clinical outcome and the development of a proportional area of TL and false lumen (FL) at defined levels of the thoracic aorta were analyzed.

Results

None of the surviving patients (87.5%) showed signs of clinical malperfusion (i.e., stroke, spinal cord injury, and need for dialysis). A postoperative CT scan showed an open TL in all patients. The proportion of TL with respect to total aortic diameter (TL+FL) was postoperatively significantly higher in zone III (p = 0.016) and at the level of T11 (p = 0.009). The mean area of TL+FL was comparable between pre- and postoperative CT-scan (p = n.s.). One patient with preoperative resuscitation died of multiple organ failure on extracorporeal life support on postoperative day 3.

Conclusion

Implantation of AMDS can be safely performed in patients who need partial replacement of the aortic arch beyond zone 0. The advantages of the AMDS can be combined with those of the total arch repair (remodeling of the arch and prevention of TL collapse) without the possible disadvantages (risk of spinal cord injury).

CT of Postoperative Repair of the Ascending Aorta and Aortic Arch

While many of the classic open surgical repairs are still used to repair the ascending aorta, management of the aortic arch has become more complex via implementation of newer open surgical and endovascular techniques. Furthermore, techniques are often combined in novel repairs or to allow extended anatomic coverage. As such, a framework that rests on understanding the expected postoperative appearance is necessary for the diagnostic radiologist to best interpret CT studies in these patients. After reviewing the imaging appearances of the common components used in proximal aortic repair, the authors present a structured approach that focuses on the key relevant questions that diagnostic radiologists should consider when interpreting CT studies in these patients. For repair of the ascending aorta, this includes determining whether the aortic valve has been repaired, whether the sinuses of Valsalva have been repaired, and how the coronary arteries were managed, when necessary. In repairs that involve the aortic arch, the relevant considerations relate to management of the arch vessels and the distal extent of the repair. In focusing on these questions, the diagnostic radiologist will be able to identify and describe the vast majority of repairs. Understanding these questions will also facilitate improved understanding of novel repairs, which often use these basic building blocks. Finally, complications-which typically involve infection, noninfectious repair breakdown, hemorrhage, problems with endografts, or disease of the remaining adjacent aorta-will be identifiable as deviations from the expected postoperative appearance. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2021.

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.

Factors Affecting Outcomes in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review

Acute type A aortic dissection is a clinical emergency and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates if not managed promptly in specialised and high-volume centres. The mortality rate is increased by 1% for each hour delay in management; however, with advancement in clinical practice, diagnostic imaging and clinician awareness, this has been dramatically reduced to below 30% in most international centres. Not only timing of recognition of the pathology, but also other factors can significantly affect outcomes of such critical pathology. This includes, but is not limited to, age, extent of the pathology, existence of connective tissue disorders, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and surgeon experience. This narrative review will focus on current clinical practice and the evidence behind optimising each factor to minimise adverse outcomes in such high-risk cohort.

Cardiac surgery 2018 reviewed

For the year 2018, more than 22,000 published references can be found in PubMed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". As in the last 4 years, this review focusses on conventional cardiac surgery publications which provide important and interesting information especially relevant for non-surgical colleagues. Interventional techniques have been considered if they were published in the context of classic surgical techniques. We have again reviewed the fields of coronary revascularization and valve surgery and briefly touched on aortic surgery and surgery for terminal heart failure. For revascularization of complex coronary artery disease, bypass grafting was reconfirmed as gold standard and computer-tomographic angiography established equipoise for decision-making with classic angiography. For aortic valve treatment, some new longer-term outcomes from TAVI vs. SAVR trials confirmed equipoise of both treatments for high and medium risk. New information was provided for INR-management of mechanical aortic valves as well as long-term experiences for alternatives to mechanical valves (i.e., Ross and the relatively new Ozaki procedure). In the mitral and tricuspid field, prevalence data illustrate a significant amount of under-treatment for mitral and tricuspid valve regurgitation and evidence for life prolonging-effects of surgery. Finally, elongation of the ascending aorta was identified as new risk factor for aortic dissection and 2 years outcome of the newest generation of left ventricular assist devices demonstrate impressive improvements in outcome. While this article attempts to summarize the most pertinent publications, it does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. As in recent years, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery and a stimulus for in-depth reading.