The aortic arch management for type A aortic dissection: aggressive but experienced.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Permanyer E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7330748 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The aortic arch management for type A aortic dissection: aggressive but experienced.
Permanyer Eduard E Ruyra Xavier X Evangelista Artur A
Journal of thoracic disease 20200601 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIt is controversial if extension of aortic dissection into arch branches should be an indication for replacement of the arch and its branches in acute type A aortic dissection.MethodsFrom 2008 to April 2018, 399 patients underwent open repair for an acute type A aortic dissection, and 190 patients had known innominate and/or left common carotid artery dissection without malperfusion syndrome, including no arch procedure (n = 1)/hemiarch replacement (n = 109) and zone 1/2/3 arch replacement (n = 80) with replacement of 1 to 4 arch branch vessels.ResultsMedian patient age was 58 years. Preoperative comorbidities were similar between groups, except the hemiarch group had more coronary artery disease (22% vs 3%, P = .0002). Both groups underwent similar aortic root procedures and other concomitant procedures with equivalent cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. The zone 1/2/3 group had longer hypothermic circulatory arrest times with greater use of antegrade cerebral perfusion (all P < .05). The perioperative and midterm outcomes were similar between the hemiarch and zone 1/2/3 arch groups, including 30-day mortality (7% vs 5%), rates of transient ischemic attack and stroke, incidence rates of reoperation for distal aortic pathology with a mean follow-up time of 3.5 years, and 5-year survival (79% [95% confidence interval, 69%-87%] vs 85% [95% confidence interval, 71%-93%]). However the hemiarch group had a trend of increased cumulative incidence of reoperation (8-year, 23% vs 9%; P = .33).ConclusionsIn acute type A aortic dissection, dissection of arch branches alone should not be an indication for routine zone 1/2/3 arch replacement; however zone 1/2/3 arch replacement could be considered to prevent future reoperations in select patients.
| S-EPMC6982577 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We reported a 48-year-old male patient with postoperative hemorrhage. Given his frailty, emergent interventional procedures were successfully performed and the end of the left subclavian artery was embolized by four coils. Our report provided a new therapeutic approach regarding the frail patients presenting postoperative hemorrhage.
| S-EPMC5067825 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate central aortic cannulation and arch branch vessel (ABV) cannulation in acute type A aortic dissection repair.MethodsFrom 2015 to April 2020, 298 patients underwent open repair of an acute type A aortic dissection. Patients undergoing femoral cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass (n = 34) were excluded. Patients were then divided based on initial cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass into central aortic cannulation (n = 72) and ABV cannulation (n = 192) groups. ABV sites included cannulation of the axillary, innominate, right/left common carotid, and intrathoracic right subclavian arteries.ResultsThe aortic cannulation group was younger (59 vs 62 years; P = .02), more likely to be men (76% vs 60%; P = .02), and had more peripheral vascular disease (60% vs 37%; P = .0009). ABV dissection was similar between central and ABV cannulation groups (53% vs 60%; P = .51). The aortic cannulation group underwent less aggressive arch replacement, had shorter cardiopulmonary bypass times (200 vs 222 minutes; P = .01), less utilization of antegrade cerebral perfusion (93% vs 98%; P = .04), and received less blood transfusion (0 vs 1 U; P = .001). Postoperative outcomes were similar between aortic and ABV cannulation groups, including stroke (5.6% vs 5.2%; P = 1.0) and operative mortality (4.2% vs 6.3%; P = .77). In addition, postoperative strokes were similar in location (right-brain, left-brain, or bilateral), etiology (embolic vs hemorrhagic), and presence of permanent deficits. Aortic cannulation was not a risk factor for postoperative stroke (odds ratio, 0.94; P = .91) or operative mortality (odds ratio, 0.70; P = .64). Short-term survival was similar between central and ABV cannulation groups.ConclusionsBoth aortic and ABV cannulation were safe and effective cannulation strategies in acute type A aortic dissection repair.
| S-EPMC8987894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the distinct anatomical differences between patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) and control patients (CPs) can enhance our knowledge of normal and pathological aortic dimensions. This study aimed to deepen our knowledge of these dimensions by measuring and comparing the anatomical indices of the aortic arch in male patients with TBAD and non-TBAD male patients.MethodsIn this cross-sectional observational study, 62 TBAD patients (TBADPs) and 43 CPs were assessed. Using a fit centerline approach, we identified three pivotal anatomical landmarks: Point A, Point B, and Point C. These landmarks represented intersections of the aortic arch with the brachiocephalic trunk, left common carotid artery, and left subclavian artery, respectively. These points defined Zones 1, 2, and 3, which collectively span the entire proximal aorta from the proximal end of the aortic valve to Point C. Our analyses compared key anatomical indices such as diameter of the circumscribed circle (Dcirc), ellipticity, curvature, tortuosity between TBADP and CP at critical points and regions.ResultsTBADPs showed a more circular cross-sectional shape at Points A, B and C, as indicated by reduced values of Dcirc_A (P = 0.031), ellipticity_A (P = 0.034) and ellipticity_B (P = 0.048), together with a significant decrease in Dcirc_C (P = 0.015) and ellipticity_C (P = 0.007). The aortic arch in TBADPs showed enhanced tortuosity in Zone 1 (p = 0.002) and extended elongation in Zone 3 (p = 0.001).ConclusionsThe study found that the aortic arch in male TBAD patients is more circular near its primary branches, has greater tortuosity in Zone 1, and is longer in Zone 3 compared to male control patients.
| S-EPMC11481445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare perioperative and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing hemiarch and aggressive arch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS:From 1996 to 2017, we compared outcomes of hemiarch (n = 322) versus aggressive arch replacements (zones 2 and 3 arch replacement with implantation of 2-4 arch branches, n = 150) in ATAAD. Indications for aggressive arch were arch aneurysm >4 cm or intimal tear in the aortic arch that was not resectable by hemiarch replacement, or dissection of arch branches with malperfusion. RESULTS:Patients in the aggressive arch group were significantly younger (mean age: 57 vs 61 years old) and had significantly longer hypothermic circulatory arrest, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic crossclamp times. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between hemiarch and aggressive arch groups, including 30-day mortality (5.3% vs 7.3%, P = .38) and postoperative stroke rate (7% vs 7%, P = .96). Over 15 years, Kaplan-Meier survival was similar between hemiarch and aggressive arch groups (log-rank P = .55, 10-year survival 70% vs 72%). Given death as a competing factor, incidence rates of reoperation over 15 years (2.1% vs 2.0% per year, P = 1) and 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation (14% vs 12%, P = .89) for arch and distal aorta pathology were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS:Both hemiarch and aggressive arch replacement are appropriate approaches for select patients with ATAAD. Aggressive arch replacement should be considered for an arch aneurysm >4 cm or an intimal tear at the arch unable to be resected by hemiarch replacement, or dissection of the arch branches with malperfusion.
| S-EPMC6441394 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11689523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective The aim of the study was to investigate surgical modalities and outcomes in patients with type A aortic dissection involving arch anomalies. Method Patients with type A aortic dissection who underwent surgical treatment at our center between January 2017 and 31 December 2020 were selected for this retrospective analysis. Data including computed tomography (CT), surgical records, and cardiopulmonary bypass records were analyzed. Perioperatively survived patients were followed up, and long-term mortality and aortic re-interventions were recorded. Result A total of 81 patients with arch anomalies were included, 35 with “bovine” anomalies, 23 with an aberrant right subclavian artery, 22 with an isolated left vertebral artery, and one with a right-sided arch + aberrant left subclavian artery. The strategies of arch management and cannulation differed according to the anatomic variation of the aortic arch. In total, seven patients (9%) died after surgery. Patients with “bovine” anomalies had a higher perioperative mortality rate (14%) and incidence of neurological complications (16%). Overall, four patients died during the follow-up period, with a 6-year survival rate of 94.6% (70/74). A total of four patients underwent aortic re-intervention during the follow-up period; before the re-intervention, three received the en bloc technique (13.6% 3/22) and one received hybrid therapy (11.1% 1/9). Conclusion With complete preservation and reconstruction of the supra-arch vessels, patients with type A aortic dissection combining arch anomalies can achieve a favorable perioperative prognostic outcome. Patients who received the en bloc technique are more likely to require aortic re-intervention than patients who underwent total arch replacement with a four-branched graft vessel. Cannulation strategies should be tailored according to the variation of anatomy, but routine cannulation with the right axillary artery can still be performed in most patients with arch anomalies, even for patients with an aberrant right subclavian artery.
| S-EPMC9513207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: We sought to investigate the best degree of hypothermic cardiac arrest (HCA) in type A aortic dissection (TAAD) with a cohort of 1,018 cases receiving total arch replacement from 2013 to 2018 in Fuwai Hospital. Method: The cohort was divided by DHCA (≤24°C, n = 580) vs. MHCA (>24°C, n = 438), and interquartile range (Q1-Q4). Primary endpoints included mortality, stroke, paraplegia, and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), which were summarized as composite major outcomes (CMO). Results: The Odds Ratio (OR) of CMO for MHCA was 0.7 (95% CI: 0.5-1.0, p = 0.06) (unadjusted) and 0.6 (95% CI: 0.4-1.0, p = 0.055) (adjusted). DHCA group tended to have a significantly longer CPB time (175.6 ± 45.6 vs. 166.8 ± 49.8 min, p = 0.003), longer hospital stay (16.0 ± 13.6 vs. 13.5 ± 6.8 days, p < 0.001), and ICU stay [5.0 (3.9-6.6) vs. 3.8 (2.0-5.6) days]. A significantly greater blood loss was observed in DHCA group, with a greater requirement for RBC and platelet transfusion. Of note, MHCA showed a significant protective effect (60% risk reduction) for older patients (above 60 years) (OR 0.4; 95% CI: 0.2-0.8; p = 0.009). By quartering, Q1 had significantly higher mortality (10.9%) than Q4 (5.2%) (p = 0.035). For other comparisons, the gap was significantly widened in quartering between Q1 and Q4, i.e., the lower the temperature, the worse the outcomes, and vice versa. Propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses confirmed the above findings. Conclusions: A paradigm change from DHCA to MHCA may be encouraged in TAAD arch operation, especially for the elderly.
| S-EPMC8115724 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8869625 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8302985 | biostudies-literature