Repair of type A dissection-benefits of dissection rota

Onset of pain to surgery time in acute aortic dissections type A: a mandatory factor for evaluating surgical results?

Objective

An acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) is a rare but life-threatening event. The mortality rate ranges between 18% to 28% and mortality is often within the first 24 h and up to 1%-2% per hour. Although the onset of pain to surgery time has not been a relevant factor in terms of research in the field of AADA, we hypothesize that a patient's preoperative conditions depend on the length of this time.

Methods

Between January 2000 and January 2018, 430 patients received surgical treatment for acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I at our tertiary referral hospital. In 11 patients, the exact time point of initial onset of pain was retrospectively not detectable. Accordingly, a total of 419 patients were included in the study. The cohort was categorized into two groups: Group A with an onset of pain to surgery time < 6 h (n = 211) and Group B > 6 h (n = 208), respectively.

Results

Median age was 63.5 years (y) ((IQR: 53.3-71.4 y); (67.5% male)). Preoperative conditions differed significantly between the cohorts. Differences were detected in terms of malperfusion (A: 39.3%; B: 23.6%; P: 0.001), neurological symptoms (A: 24.2%; B: 15.4%; P: 0.024), and the dissection of supra-aortic arteries (A: 25.1%; B: 16.8%; P: 0.037). In particular, cerebral malperfusion (A 15.2%: B: 8.2%; P: 0.026) and limb malperfusion (A: 18%, B: 10.1%; P: 0.020) were significantly increased in Group A. Furthermore, Group A showed a decreased median survival time (A: 1,359.0 d; B: 2,247.5 d; P: 0.001), extended ventilation time (A: 53.0 h; B: 44.0 h; P: 0.249) and higher 30-day mortality rate (A: 25.1%; B: 17.3%; P: 0.051).

Conclusions

Patients with a short onset of pain to surgery time in cases of AADA present themselves not only with more severe preoperative symptoms but are also the more compromised cohort. Despite early presentation and emergency aortic repair, these patients show increased chances of early mortality. The "onset of pain to surgery time" should become a mandatory factor when making comparable surgical evaluations in the field of AADA.

Outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection repair: Daytime versus nighttime

Objective

We sought to report our experience of repairing acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) over 21 years during in-hours versus out-of-hours before and after the establishment of specialized aortic service and rota.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all patients who had ATAAD repair between November 1998 and December 2019 in our center. In-hours were defined as 08:00 to 19:59 hours and out of hours were defined as 20:00 to 07:59 hours.

Results

A total of 286 patients underwent repair of ATAAD. Eighty operations took place during the prerota period (43 operations in hours, 37 out of hours) and 206 operations during the specialized rota period (110 in hours, 96 out of hours). There was no difference in 30-day mortality between the in-hours and out-of-hours groups in either the prerota (23.3% vs 32.4%; P = .36) or specialized rota periods (11.6% vs 11.5%; P = .94). Mean number of cases per year increased by 83% between the prerota and specialized rota periods. Thirty-day mortality reduced in both the in-hours (23.3% vs 11.6%) and out-of-hours (32.4% vs 11.5%) groups since introduction of the specialized aortic rota.

Conclusions

Outcomes in repair of ATAAD during in-hours and out-of-hours periods are similar when operated on in a specialized unit with a dedicated aortic team. This emphasizes the current global trend of service centralization without particular attention to time of day to operate on such critical cohort patients.

Femoral versus axillary cannulation in acute type A aortic dissections: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

There has been a growing interest in antegrade cannulation techniques in type A aortic dissection surgery. Axillary cannulation has previously been reported to provide better outcomes in terms of short-term mortality and neurological event. Consensus regarding the best cannulation strategy still remains controversial.

METHOD

The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were conducted up until October 3, 2020. Data regarding mortality, stroke, reoperation for bleeding and length of hospital stay, wound infection and cardiopulmonary bypass time were extracted and submitted to a meta-analysis using random-effects modelling and the I² -test for heterogeneity. Fourteen retrospective observational studies were included, enrolling a total of 2621 patients.

RESULTS

There were a total of 2621 patients (1327 axillary cannulation and 874 femoral cannulation). Axillary cannulation was associated with reduced short term mortality (pooled odds ratio [OR] = +0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = +0.25 to +0.70; p = .0009) compared to femoral cannulation. Axillary cannulation was also associated with a lower incidence of neurological events (pooled OR = +0.63, 95% CI = +0.42 to +0.94; p = .02).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analyses suggests that axillary cannulation has superior outcomes in terms of mortality and stroke following emergency surgery for type A aortic dissection. However, the lack of high quality randomized controlled trials does not make this recommendation generalisable to all units.

Time is of the essence: where can we improve care in acute aortic dissection?

OBJECTIVES

In acute aortic dissection type A various components of the diagnostic and logistic pathways may affect the time to definitive treatment. This study aimed to characterize these components and to identify factors delaying the optimal management within our institutional referral network.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and January 2020, 96 consecutive patients with classical aortic dissection type A were admitted (28%) or referred (72%) to our tertiary care centre and analysed retrospectively. Data are presented as medians (25th-75th quartile).

RESULTS

Median age was 66 years (56-74), 63% were male. Most of the patients were primarily admitted to a cardiology department (40%), whereas about a fourth were admitted to departments for internal medicine (26%) and general surgery (27%). The median interval from the onset of symptoms to hospital admission was 2.1 (1-4.4) h. From admission to confirmed diagnosis it took 2.1 (0.6-9.5) h and the median interval from confirmed diagnosis to admission at our specialized tertiary care aortic centre was 1.5 (0.9-2.4) h. Following admission to our centre, 1.1 (0.5-1.9) h passed until the induction of anaesthesia and 0.8 (0.0-1.1) h until the start of surgery. The total interval from the onset of symptoms to the start of surgery was 7.6 h (5.1-12.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The marked variability of the time from symptoms to diagnosis at any medical facility demonstrates the importance of awareness in the optimization of the treatment of acute aortic dissection type A.

Management of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection at a Public Cardiac Center in the Northeast Region of Brazil

Introduction

Aortic diseases are among the most serious cardiovascular diseases; the overall mortality rate due to diseases such as aneurysms and aortic dissections has been estimated at 2.78 per 100,000 persons in 2010, with a higher mortality rate in men than women. Our objective was to evaluate the epidemiological profile of patients with acute type A aortic dissection at a cardiology referral center.

Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed at a public cardiac center with 24 patients hospitalized from 1/1/2016 to 12/31/2017 with a confirmed diagnosis of acute type A aortic dissection.

Results

Twenty (83.3%) out of 24 patients underwent surgery and four (16.7%) did not undergo surgery. Among those who underwent surgery, 10 (50%) died and 10 (50%) were discharged, and all non-operated patients died (P=0.114) (Fisher's exact test). The male gender predominated (n=19, 79.2%), 86.7% (n=13) of the patients presented body mass index > 25 kg/m², chest pain was found in 91.7% (n=22), and renal failure was present in 45.8% (n=11) of the cases. Hypertension predominated in 91.7% (n=22) and the main exam was aortic angiotomography in 79.2% (n=19) of the cases.

Conclusion

The study presented a small sample size, making it impossible to associate the factors, although the service was considered a high-volume referral center. It is possible that the delay in arriving at the service and the accomplishment of invasive imaging with the use of contrast agents have aggravated the patients’ condition and have been decisive for the increase in lethality, which requires further studies.

Acute aortic dissection type A: Impact of aortic specialists on short and long term outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Acute aortic dissection type-A (AADA) is a life threatening condition which requires emergency surgery. Surgery is usually performed by cardiac surgeons with various levels of aortic surgical experience. We compared the short-term perioperative outcome and long-term survival of patients operated by specialist aortic surgeons (SASs)and those who were operated by surgeons without specialist expertise.

METHODS

A single center retrospective review of 232 patients who underwent acute surgery for AADA was conducted between 2005 and 2020. The cohort was divided into those operated on by SASs (Group A, n = 186) and those operated on by nonaortic surgeons (Group B, n = 46). Statistical comparison was done using regression modelling and groups were propensity matched. Kaplan-Meier comparison was undertaken using STATA14.

RESULTS

Of 232 patients, 186 were operated on by an aortic specialist and 46 were operated by a nonaortic specialist. Overall 30-day mortality was 10% in Group A compared to 26.0% in Group B (unadjusted: p = .01, multivariate: p = .02, and propensity matched p = .05). Long-term mortality at 14 years was 26% in Group A compared to 52.0% in Group B (unadjusted: p = .001, multivariate: p = .001, and propensity matched: p = .01). Aortic surgeons performed a significantly higher number of aortic root procedures (43.0% vs. 17.3%, p = .001). The cross-clamp time and bypass time was significantly shorter in Group A patients (89 vs. 105 min, p < .01 and 153 vs. 185, p = < .001). Postoperative requirement for renal filtration was (19% vs. 37%, unadjusted p = .01, multivariate p = .03 and propensity matched p = .04). Although postoperative bleeding was less in Group A (4.0% vs. 11.0%, unadjusted p = .05) after propensity matching it was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AADA, surgery performed by aortic specialist's results in improved outcomes. Aortic specialists replaced more of dissected aorta, resulting in an increased number of complex procedures, which may explain improved long-term survival after AADA in this cohort. This study adds further support in establishing a specialist aortic surgical service in cardiac centers.

The Many Care Models to Treat Thoracic Aortic Disease in Canada: A Nationwide Survey of Cardiac Surgeons, Cardiologists, Interventional Radiologists, and Vascular Surgeons

Background

Several specialties treat thoracic aortic disease, resulting in multiple patient care pathways. This study aimed to characterize these varied care models to guide health policy.

Methods

A 57-question e-survey was sent to staff cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, interventional radiologists, and vascular surgeons at 7 Canadian medical societies.

Results

For 914 physicians, the response rate was 76% (86 of 113) for cardiac surgeons, 40% (58 of 146) for vascular surgeons, 24% (34 of 140) for radiologists, and 14% (70 of 515) for cardiologists. Several services admitted type B dissections (vascular 37%, cardiology 31%, cardiac 18%, other 7%), and care was heterogeneous. Ownership of disease management was overestimated relative to the perspective of the other specialties. Type A dissection admissions and treatment were more uniform, but emergent call coverage varied. A 24/7 aortic specialist on-call schedule was present only 4% of the time. “Aortic” case rounds promoted attendance by a broader aortic specialty contingency relative to rounds that were specialty specific. Although 89% of respondents felt an aortic team was best for patient care, only 54% worked at an institution with an aortic team present, and only 28% utilized an aortic clinic. Questions designed to define an aortic team derived 63 different combinations.

Conclusions

Thoracic aortic disease follows a network of undefined and variable care pathways, despite its high-risk population in need of complex treatment considerations. Multidisciplinary aortic teams and clinics exist in low volume, and the “aortic team” remains an obscure construct. A multispecialty initiative to define the aortic team and outline standardized navigation pathways within the health systems hospitals is advocated.

Type A Aortic Dissection in the United Kingdom: The Untold Facts

There is a lack of evidence on multiple levels for appropriate recognition, management, and outcome results in Type A aortic dissection management in the United Kingdom. A huge amount of retrospective data exists in the literature which provides nonmeaningful prospect to a service that meets the current era. Electronic searches were performed on PubMed and Cochrane databases with no limits placed on dates. Search terms were charted to MeSH terms and combined using Boolean operations, and also used as key words. Papers were selected on the basis of title and abstract. The reference lists of selected papers were reviewed to identify any relevant papers that might be suitable for inclusion in the study. Papers were selected based on providing primary end points of death, rupture, or dissection and/or information regarding aortic aneurysm growth. Papers were not excluded based on patient population age. We demonstrated the lack of evidence for quality outcomes in type A aortic dissection in the United Kingdom. This highlighted the unwarranted variation seen in this entity and the caveats needed to improve structuring of type A aortic dissection from early identification in emergency departments to arrival at destination site for optimum intervention. Emergency services should be restructured to meet the immediate affirmation of diagnosis with gold standard imaging modality available. Management of this dire disease should be instituted at local hospitals prior to transportation and results should be audited regularly to improve quality outcomes. Attempts should be made to create local area networks to improve the efficiencies and outcomes of the service and transfer to centers with concentration of expertise. Recognition of regional networks by the UK Government Care Quality Commission should in part based on cumulative evidence sought after from virtual multidisciplinary teams. Unwarranted variation is an avenue that requires to be addressed to rise with service provision that meets our patients aspiration and be of current evidence in the 21st era.

Aortic centres should represent the standard of care for acute aortic syndrome

Background Existing evidence suggests that patients affected by acute aortic syndromes (AAS) may benefit from treatment at dedicated specialized aortic centres. The purpose of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact aortic service configuration has in clinical outcomes in AAS patients. Methods The design was a quantitative and qualitative review of observational studies. We searched PubMed/ MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to the end of December 2017 to identify eligible articles. Areas of interest included hospital and surgeon volume activity, presence of a multidisciplinary thoracic aortic surgery program, and a dedicated on-call aortic team. Participants were patients undergoing repair for AAS, and odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adopted for synthesizing hospital/30-day mortality. Results A total of 79,131 adult patients from a total of 30 studies were obtained. No randomized studies were identified. Pooled unadjusted ORs showed that patients treated in high-volume centres or by high-volume surgeons were associated with lower mortality rates (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.46-0.56, and OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.25-0.66, respectively). Pooled adjusted estimates for both high-volume centres and surgeons confirmed these survival benefits (adjusted OR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.45-0.70, respectively). Patients treated in centres that introduced a specific multidisciplinary aortic program and a dedicated on-call aortic team also showed a significant reduction in mortality (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.19-0.5, and OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.87, respectively). Conclusions We found that specialist aortic care improves outcomes and decreases mortality in patients affected by AAS.

Single Low-Volume Center Experience with Frozen Elephant Trunk in Acute Type A Aortic Dissections

BACKGROUND

 Acute Type A aortic dissection (AAAD) is a surgical emergency. In patients with arch and descending aorta involvement (DeBakey Type I), a total aortic arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (FET) could favor false lumen thrombosis and improve long-term results. The authors hereby present their experience with this technique in a single low-volume center, to assess whether the technique is feasible to treat such disease.

METHODS

 From January 2011 to December 2016, 43 patients with AAAD were operated on in the authors' institution, which carries out 300 to 350 annual procedures. Among these, 12 patients with an intimal tear in the aortic arch and/or proximal descending aorta received a FET procedure (10 males, age 57 years). Concomitant procedures were aortic valve replacement (42%), Bentall (25%), and aortic valve repair (17%).

RESULTS

 Cardiopulmonary bypass, cardiac arrest, and circulatory arrest times were 235 ± 43, 171 ± 33, and 75 ± 20 minutes, respectively. The operative mortality was 16.7% (n = 2). Stroke and re-thoracotomy for bleeding occurred in 8% (n = 1) and 8% (n = 1), respectively. There was no spinal cord injury. Follow-up was 36.1 months. During follow-up, no patients died or required a reoperation on the downstream aorta.

CONCLUSION

 Although all patients were operated on in a low-volume center, the results with FET in AAAD are acceptable. Even though this technique demands high technical skills, it is a promising approach in patients with acute aortic dissection.

Reflection From UK Aortic Group: Frozen Elephant Trunk Technique as Optimal Solution in Type A Acute Aortic Dissection

Diseases of the thoracic aorta are increasing in prevalence worldwide. Recent data indicated wide regional variation in the volume and complexity of aortic cases undertaken in United Kingdom cardiac centers, especially in case of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) conditions. Patients treated in high-volume centers with a specific multidisciplinary aortic program had a significant reduction in ATAAD mortality when compared with low-volume centers. Following the initial phase of a national aortic center reorganization, the current study reflects the initial experience of a national collective of cardiothoracic surgeons with expertise in complex aortic surgery, using frozen elephant trunk as standard technique for the surgical treatment of patients affected by ATAAD. Between June 2013 and October 2017, 66 ATAAD patients (45% women) underwent hybrid aortic arch and frozen elephant trunk repair with the Thoraflex hybrid graft at 8 UK high-volume aortic centers. The in-hospital mortality accounted for 8 patients (12%). Postoperative temporary or permanent neurologic events and temporary renal replacement therapy occurred in 17% and 20% of patients, respectively. No spinal cord injury events were documented. Our data were similar to those reported in literature in the 2 largest experiences with the use of frozen elephant technique in ATAAD condition (in-hospital/30-day mortality: 11-12%). This initial experience demonstrated that frozen elephant technique can potentially be adopted as standard approach in life-threatening aortic diseases, with acceptable complication and mortality rates.

Impact of reduced left ventricular function on repairing acute type A aortic dissection: Outcome and risk factors analysis from a single institutional experience

Preoperative left ventricular dysfunction is a risk factor for postoperative mortality and morbidity in cardiovascular surgeries with cardiopulmonary bypass, including thoracic aortic surgery. Using a retrospective study design, this study aimed to clarify the short- and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair with reduced left ventricular function.Between July 2007 and February 2018, a total of 510 adult patients underwent surgical repair of ATAAD in a single institution. The patients were classified as having left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% (low EF group, n = 86, 16.9%) and LVEF ≥50% (normal group, n = 424, 83.1%) according to transesophageal echocardiographic assessment at the operating room. Preoperative demographics, surgical information, and postoperative complication were compared between the two groups. Three-year survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier actuarial method. Serial echocardiographic evaluations were performed at 1, 2, and 3 years postoperation.Demographics, comorbidities, and surgical procedures were generally homogenous between the 2 groups, except for a lower rate of aortic arch replacement in the low EF group. The averaged LVEFs were 44.3 ± 2.5% and 65.8 ± 6.6% among the low EF and normal groups, respectively. The patients with low EF had higher in-hospital mortality (23.3% versus 13.9%, P = .025) compared with the normal group. Multivariate analysis revealed that intraoperative myocardial failure requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was an in-hospital mortality predictor (odds ratio, 16.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-234.32; P = .034), as was preoperative serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL. For patients who survived to discharge, the 3-year cumulative survival rates were 77.8% and 82.1% in the low EF and normal groups, respectively (P = .522). The serial echocardiograms revealed no postoperative deterioration of LVEF during the 3-year follow-up.Even with a more conservative aortic repair procedure, the patients with preoperative left ventricular dysfunction are at higher surgical risk for in-hospital mortality. However, once such patients are able to survive to discharge, the midterm outcome can still be promising.