Search

Background: The goal of this study was to compare early postoperative outcomes and actuarial-free survival between patients who underwent repair of acute Type A aortic dissection with axillary or femoral artery cannulation., Methods: A total of 305 patients from five academic medical centers underwent acute Type A aortic dissection repair via axillary ( n = 107) or femoral ( n = 198) artery cannulation between January 2000 and December 2010. Major morbidity, operative mortality, and 5-year actuarial survival were compared between groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of operative mortality, and Cox regression hazard ratios were calculated to determine predictors of long-term mortality., Results: Operative mortality was not influenced by cannulation site (16% for axillary cannulation vs. 19% for femoral cannulation, p = 0.64). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, hemodynamic instability (p < 0.001) and prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time (>200 min; p = 0.05) emerged as independent predictors of operative mortality. Stroke rates were comparable between the two techniques (14% for axillary and 17% for femoral cannulation, p = 0.52). Five-year actuarial survival was comparable between the groups (55.1% for axillary and 65.7% for femoral cannulation, p = 0.36). In Cox regression analysis, predictors of long-term mortality were: age (p < 0.001), stroke (p < 0.001), prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time (p = 0.001), hemodynamic instability (p = 0.002), and renal failure (p = 0.001)., Conclusions: The outcomes of femoral versus axillary arterial cannulation in patients with acute Type A aortic dissection are comparable. The choice of arterial cannulation site should be individualized based on different patient risk profiles.

Background: The goal of this study was to compare the early and late outcomes of different techniques of proximal root reconstruction during the repair of acute Type A aortic dissection, including aortic valve (AV) resuspension, aortic valve replacement (AVR), and a root replacement procedure., Methods: All patients who underwent acute Type A aortic dissection repair between January 2000 and October 2010 at four academic institutions were compiled from each institution's Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. This included 189 patients who underwent a concomitant aortic valve (AV) procedure; 111, 21, and 57 patients underwent AV resuspension, AVR, and the Bentall procedure, respectively. The median age of patients undergoing a root replacement procedure was significantly younger than the other two groups. Early clinical outcomes and 10-year actuarial survival rates were compared. Trends in outcomes and surgical techniques throughout the duration of the study were also analyzed., Results: The operative mortality rates were 17%, 29%, and 18%, for AV resuspension, AVR, and root replacement, respectively. Operative mortality ( p = 0.459) was comparable between groups. Hemorrhage related re-exploration did not differ significantly between groups ( p = 0.182); however, root replacement procedures tended to have decreased rates of bleeding when compared to AVR ( p = 0.067). The 10-year actuarial survival rates for the AV resuspension, Bentall, and AVR groups were 72%, 56%, and 36%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.035)., Conclusions: The 10-year actuarial survival was significantly lower in those receiving AVR compared to those receiving root replacement procedures or AV resuspension. Operative mortality was comparable between the three groups.

Background: The goal of this study was to compare operative mortality and actuarial survival between patients presenting with and without hemodynamic instability who underwent repair of acute Type A aortic dissection. Previous studies have demonstrated that hemodynamic instability is related to differences in early and late outcomes following acute Type A dissection occurrence. However, it is unknown whether hemodynamic instability at the initial presentation affects early clinical outcomes and survival after repair of Type A aortic dissection., Methods: A total of 251 patients from four academic medical centers underwent repair of acute Type A aortic dissection between January 2000 and October 2010. Of those, 30 presented with hemodynamic instability while 221 patients did not. Median ages were 63 years (range 38-82) and 60 years (range 19-87) for patients presenting with hemodynamic instability compared to patients without hemodynamic instability, respectively (P = 0.595). Major morbidity, operative mortality, and 10-year actuarial survival were compared between groups., Results: Operative mortality was profoundly influenced by hemodynamic instability (patients with hemodynamic instability 47% versus 14% for patients without hemodynamic instability, P < 0.001). Actuarial 10-year survival rates for patients with hemodynamic instability were 44% versus 63% for patients without hemodynamic instability (P = 0.007)., Conclusions: Hemodynamic instability has a profoundly negative impact on early outcomes and operative mortality in patients with acute Type A aortic dissection. However, late survival is comparable between hemodynamically unstable and non-hemodynamically unstable patients.