TY - JOUR
T1 - Hemiarch versus extended arch repair for acute type A dissection
T2 - Results from a multicenter national registry
AU - Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative Investigators
AU - Elbatarny, Malak
AU - Stevens, Louis Mathieu
AU - Dagenais, Francois
AU - Peterson, Mark D.
AU - Vervoort, Dominique
AU - El-Hamamsy, Ismail
AU - Moon, Michael
AU - Al-Atassi, Talal
AU - Chung, Jennifer
AU - Boodhwani, Munir
AU - Chu, Michael W.A.
AU - Ouzounian, Maral
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery
PY - 2024/3
Y1 - 2024/3
N2 - Objective: We compared perioperative outcomes of patients with acute type A aortic dissection undergoing hemiarch (HA) versus extended arch (EA) repair with or without descending aortic intervention. Methods: Nine hundred twenty-nine patients underwent acute type A aortic dissection repair (2002-2021, 9 centers) including open distal repair (HA) with or without additional EA repair. EA with intervention on the descending aorta (EAD) included elephant trunk, antegrade thoracic endovascular aortic replacement, or uncovered dissection stent. EA with no descending intervention (EAND), included unstented suture-only methods. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, permanent neurologic deficit, computed tomography malperfusion resolution, and a composite. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results: Mean age was 66 ± 18 years, 30% (278 out of 929) were women, and HA was performed more frequently (75% [n = 695]) than EA (25% [n = 234]). EAD techniques included: dissection stent (39 out of 234 [17%]), thoracic endovascular aortic replacement (18 out of 234 [7.7%]), and elephant trunk (87 out of 234 [37%]). In-hospital mortality (EA: n = 49 [21%] and HA: n = 129 [19%]; P = .42), and neurological deficit (EA: n = 43 [18%] and HA: n = 121 [17%]; P = .74) were similar. EA was not independently associated with death (EA vs HA odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.77-1.54; P = .63) or neurologic deficit (EA vs HA odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.47-1.55; P = .59). Composite adverse events differed significantly (EA vs HA odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.16-1.87; P = .001). Malperfusion resolved more frequently after EAD (EAD: n = 32 [80%], EAND: n = 18 [56%], HA: n = 71 [50%]; P = .004), although multivariable analysis was not significant (EAD vs HA odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 0.83-5.66; P = .10). Conclusions: Extended arch interventions pose similar perioperative mortality and neurologic risks as Hemiarch. Descending aortic reinforcement may promote malperfusion restoration. Extended techniques should be approached with caution in acute dissection due to increased risk of adverse events.
AB - Objective: We compared perioperative outcomes of patients with acute type A aortic dissection undergoing hemiarch (HA) versus extended arch (EA) repair with or without descending aortic intervention. Methods: Nine hundred twenty-nine patients underwent acute type A aortic dissection repair (2002-2021, 9 centers) including open distal repair (HA) with or without additional EA repair. EA with intervention on the descending aorta (EAD) included elephant trunk, antegrade thoracic endovascular aortic replacement, or uncovered dissection stent. EA with no descending intervention (EAND), included unstented suture-only methods. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, permanent neurologic deficit, computed tomography malperfusion resolution, and a composite. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results: Mean age was 66 ± 18 years, 30% (278 out of 929) were women, and HA was performed more frequently (75% [n = 695]) than EA (25% [n = 234]). EAD techniques included: dissection stent (39 out of 234 [17%]), thoracic endovascular aortic replacement (18 out of 234 [7.7%]), and elephant trunk (87 out of 234 [37%]). In-hospital mortality (EA: n = 49 [21%] and HA: n = 129 [19%]; P = .42), and neurological deficit (EA: n = 43 [18%] and HA: n = 121 [17%]; P = .74) were similar. EA was not independently associated with death (EA vs HA odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.77-1.54; P = .63) or neurologic deficit (EA vs HA odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.47-1.55; P = .59). Composite adverse events differed significantly (EA vs HA odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.16-1.87; P = .001). Malperfusion resolved more frequently after EAD (EAD: n = 32 [80%], EAND: n = 18 [56%], HA: n = 71 [50%]; P = .004), although multivariable analysis was not significant (EAD vs HA odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 0.83-5.66; P = .10). Conclusions: Extended arch interventions pose similar perioperative mortality and neurologic risks as Hemiarch. Descending aortic reinforcement may promote malperfusion restoration. Extended techniques should be approached with caution in acute dissection due to increased risk of adverse events.
KW - Elephant trunk
KW - acute type A dissection
KW - extended arch
KW - hemiarch
KW - hybrid arch
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85166243031&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.04.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.04.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 37084820
AN - SCOPUS:85166243031
SN - 0022-5223
VL - 167
SP - 935-943.e5
JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
IS - 3
ER -