Dataset Information

Outcomes of different aortic arch replacement techniques.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Consensus on the best treatment for aortic arch pathology is unresolved due to an emerging variety of procedures. We aimed to compare the outcomes of two major techniques for open aortic arch replacement involving the supra-aortic branches and to identify the risk factors for specific adverse events. METHODS:Between 1974 and 2017, 172 patients were treated with either the en bloc (island, n?=?59; 34.3%) or branched graft technique (n?=?113, 65.7%). Most of the patients were treated in an emergent/urgent setting (52.4%). RESULTS:Patients who underwent the en bloc procedure had significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (median: 241 vs 271 minutes, P?=?.041) and aortic cross clamp times (median: 124 vs 168 minutes, P?=?.005) than patients who underwent the separate graft technique. Overall, the hospital mortality was lower in the en bloc group, 8.5% vs 19.5%, although the difference was not significant (P?=?.077). No difference was found in the survival between the separate graft and en bloc groups at 1 (77.0 vs 86.3%), 5 (67.7 vs 66.3%) and 10 years (42.4 vs 51.3%), (P?=?.63). The postoperative stroke rate was comparable between the en bloc and separate graft cohorts (14.3 vs 19.6%, P?=?.52). Diabetics and those who underwent an elephant trunk procedure were at a higher risk for reintervention. CONCLUSIONS:The separate graft technique, which is more common today, showed no difference from the en bloc technique with regard to hospital mortality and morbidity. Furthermore, the late survival and reintervention rates were similar after both procedures.

SUBMITTER: Abjigitova D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7003787 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes of different aortic arch replacement techniques.

Abjigitova Djamila D Mokhles Mostafa M MM Papageorgiou Grigorios G Bekkers Jos A JA Bogers Ad J J C AJJC

Journal of cardiac surgery 20191209 2

<h4>Background</h4>Consensus on the best treatment for aortic arch pathology is unresolved due to an emerging variety of procedures. We aimed to compare the outcomes of two major techniques for open aortic arch replacement involving the supra-aortic branches and to identify the risk factors for specific adverse events.<h4>Methods</h4>Between 1974 and 2017, 172 patients were treated with either the en bloc (island, n = 59; 34.3%) or branched graft technique (n = 113, 65.7%). Most of the patients ...[more]

PMID: 31816120

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD) has a sudden onset and high mortality, and emergency total aortic arch replacement (TAAR) is the main treatment option for TAAD. The mortality rate of patients with postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) combined with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is remarkable higher than that of patients without AKI. However, incidence of AKI and risk factors for CRRT following TAAR isn't entirely understood.MethodsFrom October 2018 to March 2021, all patients with Stanford type A dissection who underwent total arch replacement surgery under MHCA were enrolled. According to whether CRRT treatment was performed, participants were divided into a CRRT group (n=49) and control group (n=72). Both groups incorporated the brain protection strategy of moderate hypothermia, and the left common carotid artery and the innominate artery were perfused anteriorly. Relevant medical data was collected.ResultsAge, gender, and a history of smoking and drinking were not significantly different between the 2 groups (P>0.1). There were statistical differences between the 2 groups in aortic sinus diameter and Bentall procedure (P≤0.05). Univariate analysis revealed that fresh frozen plasma was a protective factor (P<0.05) and the intraoperative transfusion volume of red blood cells, platelets, fresh frozen plasma, autologous blood used for intraoperative bleeding, aortic sinus diameter, and Bentall procedure were risk factors (P<0.1). Multivariate analysis showed that the Bentall procedure and intraoperative bleeding were risk factors for CRRT (P<0.05), and the aortic sinus diameter and intraoperative transfusion score were also risk factors for CRRT (P<0.05). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated that the model of aortic sinus diameter and intraoperative transfusion score had more significantly different discriminatory powers.ConclusionsThe Bentall procedure, intraoperative bleeding, aortic sinus diameter, and intraoperative transfusion score were risk factors for postoperative CRRT. The model of aortic sinus diameter and intraoperative transfusion score had more significantly different discriminatory powers.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to summarize the long-term experience of using the chimney technique in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for aortic arch diseases.MethodsFrom November 2007 to June 2021, a total of 345 consecutive patients (mean age 56 ± 11.3 years, range 28-83, 302 men) with aortic arch pathologies underwent TEVAR combined with chimney technique (cTEVAR). Their medical data and follow-up results were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.ResultsAmong the 345 patients, 278 (80.6%) received single chimneys, 53 (15.4%) received double chimneys, 7 (2%) received triple chimneys, and 7 (2%) underwent cTEVAR accompanied by other techniques (two with extra-anatomical bypass, two with in situ fenestration, and three with physician modified fenestration). A total of 412 chimney stents were used, including 27 in the innominate artery (IA), 113 in the left common carotid artery, 270 in the left subclavian artery, and two in the aberrant right subclavian artery. Early type IA endoleaks were found in 38 (11%) patients, including 12 with the double or triple chimney technique. Early type II endoleak was found in nine (2.6%) patients. Early re-intervention occurred in two patients with double chimney technique, one for chimney stent migration and the other for compression of chimney stent. The 30-day mortality was 1.2% (4 in 345). During a mean follow-up of 42 ± 22 months (range 1-108 months), major stroke occurred in nine (2.6%) patients, chimney occlusion or stenosis occurred in six (1.7%), and retrograde type A aortic dissection occurred in four (1.2%). Fourteen (4.1%) patients received the secondary intervention. The all-cause mortality was 6.7% (23 in 345). Additionally, the total adverse event rate after cTEVAR was 13.9% (48 in 345).ConclusionTEVAR with chimney technique provides a minimally invasive alternative with good chimney graft patency and low postoperative mortality during follow-up. However, the double and triple chimney techniques should be used cautiously as they seem to have a higher risk for type IA endoleak and adverse events after the operation.

Dataset Information

Outcomes of different aortic arch replacement techniques.

Publications

Outcomes of different aortic arch replacement techniques.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets