Dataset Information

Obesity Increases In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Patients Undergoing Open Surgical Repair: A Retrospective Study in the Chinese Population

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The prevalence of obesity is increasing worldwide, and the role of the obesity paradox in cardiovascular surgery remains controversial. In this study, we redefined obesity according to the Chinese criteria and examined the relationship between obesity and in-hospital mortality in patients with acute type A aortic dissection (AAD) undergoing open surgical repair.

Materials and Methods

A total of 289 patients with AAD (between 2014 and 2016) were divided into the non-obese group and obese group for correlation analysis, general information, demographic factors, blood biochemistry, surgical details, and complications, which were used as covariates. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and any differences in survival were evaluated with a stratified log-rank test. Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression and logistic regression were used to evaluate the effect and interaction of obesity on surgical mortality.

Results

All the 289 patients had a mean age of 48.64 (IQR 44.00–55.00) and 74.39% were men. Of the 289 patients, 228 were non-obese (78.89%) and 61 were obese (21.11%). Patients with obesity were younger and more prone to unstable blood pressure [systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)], preoperative hypoxemia and delirium, prolonged operative time, and surgical wound deep infection (p < 0.05). In the fully adjusted model, we observed an increased risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with obesity after fine-tuning other covariates including age and sex (HR = 2.65; 95% CI = 1.03 to 6.80; p = 0.042). The interaction suggested that obesity was more likely to cause death in elderly patients (age ≥ 60), although it was more common in younger patients (test for interaction, p = 0.012).

Conclusion

Obesity, interacting with age, increases the risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with AAD undergoing open surgical repair. Although more verification is needed, we believe these findings provide further evidence for the treatment of AAD.

SUBMITTER: Pan X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9315262 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:As surgical mortality decreases and endovascular utilization increases, it is unknown whether volume-outcome relationships exist in thoracic aortic dissection repair. We characterized volume-outcome relationships for surgical and endovascular management of thoracic aortic dissection. METHODS:Patients aged more than 18 years undergoing repair of thoracic aortic dissection in the United States between 2010 and 2014 were identified in seven all-payer state inpatient administrative databases. Patients were divided into groups based on type of repair: surgical repair of type A dissection (TAAD), surgical repair of type B dissection (TBAD), and endovascular repair (TEVAR). Hierarchical logistic regression models evaluated the association between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS:Overall in-hospital mortality rate was 13.4% (890 of 6650), highest after TAAD (463 of 2918, 15.9%), followed by TBAD (270 of 1934, 14.0%) and TEVAR (157 of 1798, 8.7%). Volume-outcome relationships for adjusted in-hospital mortality were demonstrated for TAAD and TBAD (P-trend < .001), but not TEVAR (P-trend = .11). Adjusted in-hospital mortality differed most for TAAD (fewer than 3 cases per year: 21%, 95% confidence interval, 18% to 24%; vs 11 or more cases per year: 12%, 95% confidence interval, 8% to 16%; P < .001) and TBAD (fewer than 2 cases per year: 18%, 95% confidence interval, 15% to 22%; vs 11 or more cases per year: 9%, 95% confidence interval, 5% to 12%; P < .001), whereas TEVAR did not differ between quartiles. Adjusted mortality was lower at centers with 26 or more overall annual thoracic dissection repairs, compared with any of the three lower-volume quartiles (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated lower mortality at high-volume hospitals for overall repair of aortic dissection, persisting separately for surgical repair of TAAD and TBAD, but not TEVAR. As endovascular technology advances and practice patterns consequently change, analyses should focus on understanding the balance between procedural volume, mortality, and access to care for thoracic aortic dissection.

Project description:Importance:Knowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies. Objective:To determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019. Exposures:Elective EVAR or OSR for AAA. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture. Results:Among 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years. Conclusions and Relevance:Endovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening condition that requires surgical intervention. Stroke remains an extremely serious adverse outcome that can occur in ATAAD patients undergoing aortic arch repair, leading to higher rates of patient mortality and decreased postoperative quality of life. In the present study, we sought to determine whether carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) is a reliable predictor of postoperative stroke risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This was a prospective study of 76 patients with ATAAD undergoing aortic arch repair. For all patients, cIMT was determined preoperatively through a Doppler-based method. Incidence of different forms of neurological dysfunction, including temporary neurological dysfunction (TND) and stroke, was monitored in these patients, and the relationship between cIMT and stroke incidence was assessed using a receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Prognostic variables associated with stroke risk were further identified through univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS:A total of 26/76 (34.2%) patients in the present study suffered from neurological dysfunction, of whom 16 (21.0%) suffered from TND and 10 (13.2%) suffered a stroke. The remaining 50 patients (65.8%) did not suffer from neurological dysfunction. The cIMT values in the stroke, TND, and neurological dysfunction-free patients in this study were 1.12?±?0.19 (mm), 0.99?±?0.13 (mm), and 0.87?±?0.13 (mm), respectively. A total of 4 patients in this cohort died during the study, including 1 in the TND group and 3 in the stroke group. An ROC curve analysis indicated that cIMT could predict stroke with an area under the curve value of 0.844 (95% CI, 0.719-0.969; p?<?0.001). A multivariate analysis revealed that cIMT >?0.9?mm was independently associated with stroke risk (p?=?0.018). CONCLUSION:We found that cIMT can be used to predict postoperative stroke risk in ATAAD patients undergoing aortic arch repair, with a cIMT >?0.9?mm coinciding with increased stroke risk in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ChiCTR1900022289. Date of registration 4 April 2019 retrospectively registered.