Search

Background: Cannulation strategy in acute type A dissection (ATAD) varies widely without known gold standards. This study compared ATAD outcomes of axillary vs femoral artery cannulation in a large cohort from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD)., Methods: The study retrospectively reviewed 2145 patients from the IRAD Interventional Cohort (1996-2021) who underwent ATAD repair with axillary or femoral cannulation (axillary group: n = 1106 [52%]; femoral group: n = 1039 [48%]). End points included the following: early mortality; neurologic, respiratory, and renal complications; malperfusion; and tamponade. All outcomes are presented as axillary with respect to femoral., Results: The proportion of patients younger than 70 years in both groups was similar (n = 1577 [74%]), as were bicuspid aortic valve, Marfan syndrome, and previous dissection. Patients with femoral cannulation had slightly more aortic insufficiency (408 [55%] vs 429 [60%]; P = .058) and coronary involvement (48 [8%] vs 70 [13%]; P = .022]. Patients with axillary cannulation underwent more total aortic arch (156 [15%] vs 106 [11%]; P = .02) and valve-sparing root replacements (220 [22%] vs 112 [12%]; P < .001). More patients with femoral cannulation underwent commissural resuspension (269 [30.9%] vs 324 [35.3%]; P = .05). Valve replacement rates were not different. The mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass was longer in the femoral group (190 [149-237] minutes vs 196 [159-247] minutes; P = .037). In-hospital mortality was similar between the axillary (n = 165 [15%]) and femoral (n = 149 [14%]) groups (P = .7). Furthermore, there were no differences in stroke, visceral ischemia, tamponade, respiratory insufficiency, coma, or spinal cord ischemia., Conclusions: Axillary cannulation is associated with a more stable ATAD presentation, but it is a more extensive intervention compared with femoral cannulation. Both procedures have equivalent early mortality, stroke, tamponade, and malperfusion outcomes after statistical adjustment., (Copyright © 2024 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study evaluated the frequency and clinical impact of thromboembolic complications after frozen elephant trunk aortic arch repair using the Thoraflex device (Terumo Aortic)., Methods: A total of 128 consecutive patients (mean age 67.9 ± 13.7 years, 31.0% female) underwent frozen elephant trunk aortic arch repair using the Thoraflex device between September 2014 and May 2021 in 4 Canadian centers. Patient baseline characteristics, intraoperative details, and frozen elephant trunk thromboembolic complications were collected retrospectively and analyzed., Results: Fifteen patients (11.7%) had thrombus visualized within the frozen elephant trunk stent graft on imaging (n = 8; 53.3%) or had a thromboembolic event (n = 9; 60.0%) before hospital discharge. Sites of embolism were mesenteric (n = 8; 88.9%), renal (n = 4; 44.4%), and iliofemoral (n = 1; 11.1%). Patients who experienced thromboembolic complications were more likely to have a history of autoimmune disease (n = 3; 20.0% vs n = 2; 1.8%; P = .01) and implantation of a longer frozen elephant trunk stent graft (150 mm vs 100 mm) (n = 13; 86.7% vs n = 45; 39.8%; P < .001). All patients with thromboembolic complications received therapeutic anticoagulation, and a smaller proportion required an open surgical (n = 5; 33.3%) or an endovascular (n = 2; 13.3%) intervention. Radiographic resolution of thromboembolic complications was observed in 86.7% of patients (n = 13). In-hospital mortality occurred in 1 patient, stroke occurred in 1 patient, and transient spinal cord injury occurred in 1 patient., Conclusions: Thromboembolic complications occur more often than previously recognized after frozen elephant trunk aortic arch repair using the Thoraflex device and are associated with increased rates of surgical and endovascular reintervention. Prevention and management of these complications require further study., (Copyright © 2022 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) after repair of type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) has been shown to affect both short- and long-term outcomes. This study aimed to validate the impact of postoperative AKI on in-hospital and long-term outcomes in a large population of dissection patients presenting to multinational aortic centers. Additionally, we assessed risk factors for AKI including surgical details., Methods: Patients undergoing surgical repair for TAAAD enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection database were evaluated to determine the incidence and risk factors for the development of AKI., Results: A total of 3307 patients were identified. There were 761 (23%) patients with postoperative AKI (AKI group) vs 2546 patients without (77%, non-AKI group). The AKI group had a higher rate of in-hospital mortality (n = 193, 25.4% vs n = 122, 4.8% in the non-AKI group, P < .001). Additional postoperative complications were also more common in the AKI group including postoperative cerebrovascular accident, reexploration for bleeding, and prolonged ventilation. Independent baseline characteristics associated with AKI included a history of hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, evidence of malperfusion on presentation, distal extent of dissection to abdominal aorta, and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time. Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed decreased 5-year survival among the AKI group (P < .001)., Conclusions: AKI occurs commonly after TAAAD repair and is associated with a significantly increased risk of operative and long-term mortality. In this large study using the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection database, several factors were elucidated that may affect risk of AKI., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Early data revealed a mortality rate of 1% to 2% per hour for type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) during the initial 48 hours. Despite advances in diagnostic testing and treatment, this mortality rate continues to be cited because of a lack of contemporary data characterizing early mortality and the effect of timely surgery., Objective: To examine early mortality rates for patients with TAAAD in the contemporary era., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study examined data for patients with TAAAD in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection between 1996 and 2018. Patients were grouped according to the mode of their intended treatment, surgical or medical., Exposure: Surgical treatment., Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality was assessed in the initial 48 hours after hospital arrival using Kaplan-Meier curves. In-hospital complications were also evaluated., Results: A total of 5611 patients with TAAAD were identified based on intended treatment: 5131 (91.4%) in the surgical group (3442 [67.1%] male; mean [SD] age, 60.4 [14.1] years) and 480 (8.6%) in the medical group (480 [52.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 70.9 [14.7] years). Reasons for medical management included advanced age (n = 141), comorbidities (n = 281), and patient preference (n = 81). Over the first 48 hours, the mortality for all patients in the study was 5.8%. Among patients who were medically managed, mortality was 0.5% per hour (23.7% at 48 hours). For those whose intended treatment was surgical, 48-hour mortality was 4.4%. In the surgical group, 51 patients (1%) died before the operation., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the overall mortality rate for TAAAD was 5.8% at 48 hours. For patients in the medical group, TAAAD had a mortality rate of 0.5% per hour (23.7% at 48 hours). However, among those in the surgical group, 48-hour mortality decreased to 4.4%.

To examine the perioperative outcomes following aortic arch repair using frozen elephant trunk (FET) vs conventional elephant trunk (ET) techniques. Between 2002 and 2018, 390 patients underwent aortic repair with elephant trunk reconstruction at 9 centers: 172 patients received a FET (mean age: 65+/-13 years, 30% female, 37% aortic dissection) and 218 patients received an ET (mean age: 63+/-13 years, 37% female, 43% aortic dissection). Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality; stroke; and spinal cord injury (SCI). In-hospital mortality rate was 11% (n = 43) overall, 9% (n = 15) for FET and 13% (n = 28) for ET. Post-operative stroke occurred in 13% (n = 49) overall, 13% (n = 22) for FET and 12% (n = 27) for ET. The rate of post-operative SCI was 3% (n = 13) overall, 5.0% (n = 9) for FET and 2.0% (n = 4) for ET. When compared to ET, the propensity score analysis confirmed FET to be associated with lower mortality (adjusted risk difference -7.0% (95% CI -13.0 to -1.0), P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the propensity score-adjusted risk difference for stroke between FET and ET (-0.7%, 95% CI -7.4% to 6.1%, P = 0.85), nor for SCI (3.3%, 95% CI -0.4% to 7.0%, P = 0.085) On multivariable analysis, FET was associated with lower odds of mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.95, P = 0.04), and had similar odds of stroke (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.41-1.70, P = 0.62) and SCI (OR 2.83, 95% CI 0.83-9.60, P = 0.1). FET repair is associated with lower in-hospital mortality as compared to conventional ET, and results in similar risk of stroke and spinal cord injury. Further investigation is warranted., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous work has demonstrated that more than one-half of acute type A aortic dissections (ATADs) occur at a maximal aortic diameter (MAD) of <5.5 cm. However, no analysis has investigated whether ATAD risk at smaller MADs is more common with modest dilation of the aortic root (AR) or supracoronary ascending aorta (AA) in patients without genetically triggered aortopathy., Objectives: This study sought to determine if the segment of modest aortic dilation affects risk of ATAD., Methods: Using the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) database from May 1996 to October 2016, we identified 667 ATAD patients with MAD <5.5 cm. Patients were stratified by location of the largest proximal aortic segment (AR or AA). Patients with known genetically triggered aortopathy were excluded. MADs at time of dissection were compared between AR and AA groups. Secondary outcomes included operation, postoperative outcomes, and long-term survival., Results: Of patients with ATAD at an MAD <5.5 cm, 79.5% (n = 530) were in the AA group and 20.5% (n = 137) in the AR group. Modestly dilated ARs (median MAD 4.6 cm [IQR: 4.1-5.0 cm]) dissected at a significantly smaller diameter than modestly dilated AAs (median MAD 4.8 cm [IQR: 4.4-5.1 cm]) (P < 0.01). AR patients were significantly younger than AA patients (58.5 ± 13.0 years vs 63.2 ± 13.3 years; P < 0.01) and more commonly male (78% vs 65%; P < 0.01). Postoperative and long-term outcomes did not differ between groups., Conclusions: ATAD appears to occur at smaller diameters in patients with modest dilation in the AR vs the AA (4.6 vs 4.8 cm). These findings may have implications for future consensus guidelines regarding the management of patients with aortic disease., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In an effort to further improve surgical outcomes in patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAD), the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative (CTAC), with the support of the Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons (CSCS), endeavoured to develop quality indicators (QIs) for the management of patients with ATAD. After 2 successive consultations with the CTAC membership, 11 QIs were selected and separated into 5 broad categories: preoperative (time from presentation to diagnosis, time from presentation to the operating room), intraoperative (use of hypothermic circulatory arrest and antegrade cerebral perfusion), 30-day outcomes (30-day rates of all-cause mortality, 30-day rates of new postoperative stroke), 1-year outcomes (1-year rates of follow-up imaging, 1-year rates of all-cause mortality, and 1-year rates of surgical reintervention), and institutional (institutional surgical volumes, individual surgical volumes, and presence of institutional aortic disease teams). The purpose of this article is to describe the process by which QIs for the management of ATAD were developed and the feasibility by which they may be collected using existing clinical and administrative data sources. Furthermore, we demonstrate how they may be used to evaluate success following surgery for repair of ATAD and ultimately improve clinical outcomes., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) represents a surgical emergency requiring intervention regardless of time of day. Whether such a "evening effect" exists regarding outcomes for TAAAD has not been previously studied using a large registry data., Methods: Patients with TAAAD were identified from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissections (1996-2019). Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing operative repair during the daytime (D), defined as 8 am-5 pm, versus the evening (N), defined as 5 pm-8 am., Results: Four thousand one-hundrd and ninety-seven surgically treated patients with TAAAD were identified, with 1824 patients undergoing daytime surgery (43.5%) and 2373 patients undergoing evening surgery (56.5%). Daytime patients were more likely to have undergone prior cardiac surgery (13.2% vs. 9.5%; p < .001) and have had a prior aortic dissection (4.8% vs. 3.4%; p = .04). Evening patients were more likely to have been transferred from a referring hospital (70.8% vs. 75.0%; p = .003). Daytime patients were more likely to undergo aortic valve sparing root procedures (23.3% vs. 19.2%; p = .035); however, total arch replacement was performed with equal frequency (19.4% vs. 18.8%; p = .751). In-hospital mortality (D: 17.3% vs. N. 16.2%; p = .325) was similar between both groups. Subgroup analysis examining the effect of weekend presentation revealed no significant mortality difference., Conclusions: A majority of TAAAD patients underwent surgical repair at night. There were higher rates of postoperative tamponade in evening patients; however, mortality was similar. The expertise of cardiac-dedicated operative and critical care teams regardless of time of day as well as training paradigms may explain similar mortality outcomes in this high risk population., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Hybrid aortic arch surgery has evolved to include several technical variations, with most including an off-label use of a conventional thoracic endograft. We describe the early clinical outcomes of the Thoraflex Hybrid graft (Vascutek, Glasgow, Scotland) specifically designed for the treatment of complex arch and proximal descending aortic disease., Methods: Between January 2014 and April 2017, 40 consecutive patients (66 ± 14 years of age, 45% women) underwent hybrid aortic arch and frozen elephant trunk repair with the multibranched Thoraflex Hybrid graft at 9 Canadian centers. Surgical indications included transverse arch or proximal descending aortic aneurysm in 100%, acute dissection in 10%, chronic dissection in 43%, and acute aortic rupture in 1 patient. Antegrade cerebral perfusion and moderate hypothermia (24.3 ± 1.8°C) were employed in all cases., Results: All 40 device implants were successful. The 30-day or in-hospital mortality was 5%. Stroke and transient neurological deficits occurred in 5% and 3% of patients, respectively. Two (5%) patients experienced transient spinal cord ischemia-there were no instances of permanent paraplegia. Mean follow-up was 550 ± 328 days and late complications included type A aortic dissection in 1 patient, type B dissection in 2 patients, and further distal endografting in 2 patients. Survival at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years was 95%, 95%, and 90%, respectively., Conclusions: Hybrid aortic arch and frozen elephant trunk repair with the Thoraflex Hybrid graft appears to be associated with good clinical outcomes, despite being early in the learning curve with this graft. Further investigation with this device is warranted to establish its role within the variations of hybrid arch repair., (Copyright © 2019 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To analyze presentation, management, and outcomes of acute aortic dissections with proximal entry tear in the arch., Methods: Patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection and entry tear in the arch were classified into 2 groups: arch A (retrograde extension into the ascending aorta with or without antegrade extension) and arch B (only antegrade extension into the descending aorta or further distally). Presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes of the 2 groups were compared., Results: The arch A (n = 228) and arch B (n = 140) groups were similar concerning the presence of any preoperative complication (68.4% vs 60.0%; P = .115), but the types of complication were different. Arch A presented more commonly with shock, neurologic complications, cardiac tamponade, and grade 3 or 4 aortic valve insufficiency and less frequently with refractory hypertension, visceral ischemia, extension of dissection, and aortic rupture. Management for both groups were open surgery (77.6% vs 18.6%; P < .001), endovascular treatment (3.5% vs 25.0%; P < .001), and medical management (16.2% vs 51.4%; P < .001). Overall in-hospital mortality was similar (16.7% vs 19.3%; P = .574), but mortality tended to be lower in the arch A group after open surgery (15.3% vs 30.8%; P = .090), and higher after endovascular (25.0% vs 14.3%; P = .597) or medical treatment (24.3% vs 13.9%; P = .191), although the differences were not significant., Conclusions: Acute aortic dissection patients with primary entry tear in the arch are currently managed by a patient-specific approach. In choosing the management type of these patients, it may be advisable to stratify them based on retrograde or only antegrade extension of the dissection., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The purpose of this research is to analyze factors associated with delays to surgical management of Type A acute aortic dissection patients., Methods: Time from diagnosis to surgery and associated factors were evaluated in 1880 surgically managed Type A dissection patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection., Results: The majority of patients were transferred (75.7% vs 24.3%). Patients who were transferred had a median delay from diagnosis to surgery of 4.0 hours (interquartile range 2.5-7.2 hours), compared with 2.3 hours (interquartile range 1.1-4.2 hours; P < .001) in nontransferred patients. Among patients who were transferred, those with worst-ever, posterior, or tearing chest pain those with severe complications, and those receiving transthoracic echocardiogram prior to a transesophageal echocardiogram or as the only echocardiogram were treated more quickly. Those undergoing magnetic resonance imaging, or who had prior cardiac surgery, had longer delays to surgery. Among nontransferred patients, those with coma were treated more quickly. In both groups, patients presenting with emergent conditions such as cardiac tamponade, hypotension, or shock had more rapid treatment. Among transferred patients, surviving patients had longer delays (4.1 [2.6-7.8] hours vs 3.3 [2.0-6.0] hours, P = .001). Overall mortality did not differ between patients who were transferred vs not (19.3% vs 21.1%, P = .416)., Conclusion: Simply being transferred added significantly to the delay to surgery for Type A acute aortic dissection patients, but a number of factors affected its extent. Overall, signs and symptoms leading to a definitive diagnosis or indicating immediate life threat reduced time to surgery, while factors suggesting other diagnoses correlated with delays., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Frozen elephant trunk (FET) surgery offers a new alternative in the management of complex thoracic aortic aneurysms and dissections. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparator observational studies evaluating the efficacy of FET compared with conventional aortic arch surgery, primarily focusing on mortality and stroke as well as the secondary outcomes of spinal cord ischemia, major bleeding, and operative time., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for trials and studies comparing the FET technique with conventional surgery in patients with aortic aneurysms or dissections, or both. The overall quality of evidence was low, as assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, based primarily on the risk of bias secondary to study design, plausible confounding, and imprecision., Results: Meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in mortality (12 studies, 1803 patients: odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.78) and a nonsignificant reduction in stroke (12 studies, 1803 patients: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52-1.15) favouring FET; however, FET was associated with a significant increase in spinal cord ischemia (9 studies, 1476 patients: OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.10-4.37). No significant differences between groups were observed regarding major bleeding, cardiopulmonary bypass time, or cross-clamp time., Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that FET surgery is associated with lower mortality in patients with thoracic aneurysmal disease and dissections, without a significant increase in stroke, bleeding, or operative times. However, the risk of spinal cord ischemia is increased in patients who undergo FET. A well-powered randomized trial is needed to evaluate this evolving field., (Copyright © 2017 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The electrocardiogram (ECG) is often used in the diagnosis of patients presenting with chest pain to emergency departments. Because chest pain is a common manifestation of type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD), ECGs are obtained in much of this population. We evaluated the effect of particular ECG patterns on the diagnosis and treatment of TAAAD., Methods: TAAAD patients (N = 2,765) enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection were stratified based on normal (n = 1,094 [39.6%]) and abnormal (n = 1,671 [60.4%]) findings on presenting ECGs and further subdivided according to specific ECG findings. Time data are presented in hours as medians (quartile 1 to quartile 3)., Results: Patients with ECGs with abnormal findings presented to the hospital sooner after symptom onset than those with ECGs with normal findings (1.4 [0.8 to 3.3] vs 2.0 [1.0 to 3.3]; p = 0.005). Specifically, this was seen in patients with infarction with new Q waves or ST elevation (1.3 [0.6 to 2.7] vs 1.5 [0.8 to 3.3]; p = 0.049). Interestingly, the time between symptom onset and diagnosis was longer with infarction with old Q waves (6.7 [3.2 to 18.4] vs 5.0 [2.9 to 11.8]; p = 0.034) and nonspecific ST-T changes (5.8 [3.0 to 13.8] vs 4.5 [2.8 to 10.5]; p = 0.002). Surgical mortality was higher in patients with abnormal ECG findings (20.6% vs 11.9%, p < 0.001), especially in those with ischemia by ECG (25.7% vs 16.8%, p < 0.001) and infarction with new Q waves or ST elevation (30.1% vs 17.1%, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: TAAAD patients presenting with abnormal ECG results are sicker, have more in-hospital complications, and are more likely to die. The frequency of nonspecific ST-T abnormalities and its association with delay in diagnosis and treatment presents an opportunity for practice improvement., (Copyright © 2018 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The recommended extent of surgical resection and reconstruction of the arch in acute DeBakey Type I aortic dissection is an ongoing controversy. However, several recent reports indicate a trend towards a more extensive arch operation in several institutions. We have analysed the recent data from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection to assess the choice of procedure over time and to evaluate the surgical outcome in a 'real-world' database. Our aim was to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of limited repairs versus complete arch surgery., Methods: Of the 1241 patients included in the 'Interventional Cohort' of the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection from March 1996 to March 2015, 907 underwent ascending aortic or hemiarch replacement (Group A) and 334 had extended arch replacement (Group B). An extended resection was a surgeon's 'judgement call'. Logistic regression analysis, propensity-adjusted multivariable comparisons and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for analyses., Results: Overall in-hospital mortality was 14.2% with no difference between groups (Group A 13.1%, Group B 17.1%). Coma/altered consciousness (odds ratio 3.16, 95% confidence interval 1.60-6.25, P = 0.001), hypotension, tamponade or shock (2.03, 1.11-3.73, P = 0.022) and any pulse deficit (1.92, 1.04-3.54, P = 0.038) were predictors of in-hospital mortality in a propensity score-adjusted multivariable analysis. Overall 5-year survival was 69.4% in the ascending group and 73.1% in the total arch group (P = 0.83 by Kaplan-Meier analysis). For survivors of the index hospitalization, the 5-year freedom from death, aortic rupture and reintervention were 71.1% in Group A and 76.4% in Group B (P = 0.54 by Kaplan-Meier analysis)., Conclusions: Selective, or 'surgeon's choice', extended arch replacement had no discernible acute downside compared with less extensive surgery. Whether extended arch replacement improves the prognosis beyond 5 years remains to be settled., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

To provide data on the management and outcomes of patients with acute retrograde aortic dissection (AD) originating from a tear in the descending aorta with extension into the aortic arch or ascending aorta. All patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection from 1996-2015 were reviewed. Retrograde AD was defined by primary tear in the descending aorta with proximal extension into the arch or ascending aorta. Primary end points were in-hospital management strategy and mortality. We identified 101 patients with retrograde AD (67 men; 63.2 ± 14.0 years). During index hospitalization, medical (MED), open surgical (SURG), and endovascular (ENDO) therapies were undertaken in 44, 33, and 22 patients, respectively. The SURG group presented with larger ascending aorta (P = 0.04) and more frequent ascending aortic involvement (81.8% [27/33] vs 22.7% [15/66], P < 0.001) compared with the MED and ENDO groups. Early mortality rate was 9.1% (4/44), 18.2% (6/33), and 13.6% (3/22), for the MED, SURG, and ENDO groups (P = 0.51), respectively. A favorable early mortality rate was observed in patients with retrograde extension limited to the arch (8.6% [5/58]) vs into the ascending aorta (18.6% [8/43], P = 0.14). Early mortality rate of patients with retrograde AD with primary tear in the descending aorta (12.9% [13/101]) was significantly lower than those with classic type A AD presenting with primary tear in the ascending aorta (20.0% [195/977], P = 0.001). A subset of patients with acute retrograde AD originating from primary tear in the descending aorta might be managed less invasively with acceptable early results, particularly among those with proximal extension limited to the arch., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Shock is among the most dreaded and common complications of type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD). However, clinical correlates, management, and short- and long-term outcomes of TAAAD patients presenting with shock in real-world clinical practice are not known., Methods and Results: We evaluated 2,704 patients with TAAAD enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection between January 1, 1996, and August 18, 2012. On admission, 407 (15.1%) TAAAD patients presented with shock. Most in-hospital complications (coma, myocardial or mesenteric ischemia or infarction, and cardiac tamponade) were more frequent in shock patients. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in TAAAD patients with than without shock (30.2% vs 23.9%, P=.007), regardless of surgical or medical treatment. Most shock patients underwent surgical repair, with medically managed patients demonstrating older age and more complications at presentation. Estimates using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis indicated that most (89%) TAAAD patients with shock discharged alive from the hospital survived 5years, a rate similar to that of TAAAD patients without shock (82%, P=.609)., Conclusions: Shock occurred in 1 of 7 TAAAD patients and was associated with higher rates of in-hospital adverse events and mortality. However, TAAAD survivors with or without shock showed similar long-term mortality. Successful early and aggressive management of shock in TAAAD patients has the potential for improving long-term survival in this patient population., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Acute type A aortic dissections still present a major challenge to cardiac surgeons. Although surgical management remains the gold standard, operative mortality remains high, including in experienced centres. Nevertheless, recent advances in the understanding and management of various aspects of these complex operations are expected to improve overall patient outcomes. The Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative (CTAC) represents a group of surgeons with interest and expertise in the management of patients with aortic diseases. The purpose of this state-of-the-art review is to detail our approach to the contemporary surgical management of acute type A aortic dissections. We focus specifically on cannulation strategies, cerebral protection, and extent of proximal and distal resection. In addition, specific clinical scenarios-including malperfusion, intramural hematomas, and surgery in octogenarians-are explored., (Copyright © 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The complexity of surgical treatment for acute type A dissection contributes to the variability in patient management. This study was designed to elucidate the contemporary practice preferences of cardiac surgeons regarding different phases of management of acute type A aortic dissection., Methods: A 34-item questionnaire was distributed to all Canadian adult cardiac surgeons addressing the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative management of acute type A dissection. A total of 100 responses were obtained (82% of active surgeons in Canada). Outcomes were compared between high- and low-volume aortic surgeons., Results: Seventy-six percent of respondents favored axillary artery cannulation. High-volume surgeons (>150 cases) were more likely to indicate a target lowest nasopharyngeal temperature more than 20 °C (53% vs 25%, P = .02). The majority of surgeons (65%) recommended using selective antegrade cerebral perfusion, with a significantly greater proportion for higher-volume aortic surgeons (P = .03). In addition, high-volume aortic surgeons were more likely to recommend aortic root replacement at smaller diameters (73% vs 55%, P = .02), to recommend more extensive distal aortic resection with routine open hemiarch anastomosis (85% vs 65%, P = .04), and to more commonly perform total arch reconstruction when needed (93% vs 77%, P = .04). In the follow-up period, frequency of serial imaging of the residual aorta was significantly higher for high-volume aortic surgeons (P = .04)., Conclusions: This study identified some commonalities in practice preferences among Canadian cardiac surgeons for the management of acute type A aortic dissection. However, it also highlighted significant differences in temperature management, cerebral protection strategies, and extent of resection between high-volume and low-volume aortic surgeons., (Copyright © 2015 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aortic root management in type A acute aortic dissection is controversial. This study compared outcomes of root replacement (RR) interventions versus more conservative root (CR) management., Methods: Of 1,995 type A acute aortic dissection patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection, 699 (35%) underwent RR interventions and 1,296 (65%) underwent CR management. Independent predictors of hospital and 3-year survival were identified using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models., Results: Compared with CR patients, RR patients were younger (56.9 versus 62.3 years; p = 0.023) and more likely to present with larger root diameter (4.7 cm versus 4.0 cm; p < 0.001), Marfan syndrome (8.7% versus 2.5%; p < 0.001), aortic insufficiency (64.0% versus 50.3%; p < 0.001), and hypotension, shock, or tamponade (33.0% versus 26.5%; p = 0.003). Root replacement management did not increase hospital mortality (propensity score-adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; p = 0.674). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, 3-year survival (RR, 92.5% ± 1.7% versus CR, 91.6% ± 1.3%; log-rank p = 0.623) and freedom from aortic root reintervention (RR, 99.2% ± 0.1% versus CR, 99.3% ± 0.1%; log-rank p = 0.770) were similar. Only 2 patients (1 per group) underwent follow-up root reintervention. Propensity score-adjusted Cox regression excluded a relationship between root treatment and follow-up survival (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.502 to 5.010; p = 0.432)., Conclusions: In type A acute aortic dissection patients more-extensive RR interventions are not associated with increased hospital mortality. This supports such an approach in young patients and patients with connective tissue diseases and bicuspid aortic valves. Excellent midterm survival and freedom from root reintervention in both groups suggest stable behavior of the nonreplaced aortic sinuses at 3 years. Thus, pending studies with longer follow-up, the use of aggressive RR techniques can be determined by patient-specific and dissection-related factors., (Copyright © 2014 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Little is known about the relation between type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) and pulse pressure (PP), defined as the difference between systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In this study, we explored the association between PP and presentation, complications, and outcomes of patients with TAAAD. PP at hospital presentation was used to divide 1,960 patients with noniatrogenic TAAAD into quartiles: narrowed (≤39 mm Hg, n=430), normal (40 to 56 mm Hg, n=554), mildly elevated (57 to 75 mm Hg, n=490), and markedly elevated (≥76 mm Hg, n=486). Variables relating to index presentation and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed. Patients with TAAAD in the narrowed PP quartiles were frequently older and Caucasian, whereas patients with markedly elevated PPs tended to be male and have a history of hypertension. Patients who demonstrated abdominal vessel involvement more commonly demonstrated elevated PPs, whereas patients with narrowed PPs were more likely to have periaortic hematoma and/or pericardial effusion. Narrowed PPs were also correlated with greater incidences of hypotension, cardiac tamponade, and mortality. Patients with TAAAD who were managed with endovascular and hybrid procedures and those with renal failure tended to have markedly elevated PPs. No difference in aortic regurgitation at presentation was noted among groups. In conclusion, patients with TAAAD in the third PP quartile had better in-hospital outcomes than patients in the lowest quartile. Patients with narrowed PPs experienced more cardiac complications, particularly cardiac tamponade, whereas those with markedly elevated PPs were more likely to have abdominal aortic involvement. Presenting PP offers a clue to different manifestations of acute aortic dissection that may facilitate initial triage and care., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Complicated acute type B aortic dissection (cABAD) generally requires urgent intervention. Advanced age is a risk factor for mortality after thoracic aortic intervention, including surgery for aortic dissection. The purpose of this study was to investigate the exact impact of increasing age on the management and outcomes of cABAD., Methods: We analyzed the outcomes of 583 patients with cABAD enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) between 1996 and 2012. All patients with cABAD were categorized according to age by decade and management type (medical, surgical, or endovascular treatment), and outcomes were subsequently investigated in the different age groups., Results: The mean age of the cohort was 63.4 ± 14.2 years, 36% of patients (n = 209) were greater than 70 years of age and 64% (n = 374) were less than 70 years. The utilization of surgery and endovascular techniques progressively decreased with patient age, while the rate of medical management significantly increased with age (p < 0.001). The in-hospital mortality rates for complicated patients younger than 70 years versus 70 years or more were 10.1% versus 30.0% for endovascular treatment (p = 0.001), 17.2% versus 34.2% for surgical treatment (p = 0.027), and 14.2% versus 32.2% for medical treatment (p = 0.001). Age 70 years or greater was a predictor of in-hospital mortality in multivariate analysis (odds ratio 2.37, 95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 4.54, p = 0.010)., Conclusions: Advanced age has a dramatic impact on the management and outcomes of patients with cABAD. A nonsignificant trend toward lower mortality after endovascular management was observed, both for younger patients and for elderly patients., (Copyright © 2013 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior cardiac surgery (PCS) can complicate the presentation and management of patients with type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD). This report from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection examines this hypothesis., Methods and Results: A total of 352 of 2196 patients with TAAAD (16%) enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection had cardiac surgery before dissection, including coronary artery bypass grafting (34%), aortic or mitral valve surgery (36%), aortic surgery (42%), and other cardiac surgery (16%). Those with PCS were older, had a higher frequency of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and atherosclerosis, and presented later from symptom onset to hospital presentation and diagnosis (all P<0.05). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher for PCS patients (34% versus 23%; P<0.001). Five-year mortality was independently predicted by PCS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-3.95), age >70 years (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.40-5.05), medical management (HR, 5.10; 95% CI, 2.43-10.71), distal communication (HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.35-5.14), and coma (HR, 9.50; 95% CI, 2.05-44.05). Among patients with PCS, in-hospital (43% medical versus 30% surgical; P=0.033) and intermediate-term mortality was higher in patients with medical versus surgical management. Propensity-matched analysis revealed significant increase in mortality with medical management, but not with PCS., Conclusions: PCS delays presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of TAAAD and is an important adverse risk factor for early and intermediate-term mortality. This effect may be because of increased medical management in this patient population.

Objectives: The management strategy remains controversial for patients presenting with type A acute aortic dissection with cerebrovascular accident or coma. The present study aimed to help guide surgeons treating these high-risk patients., Methods: Of 1873 patients with type A acute aortic dissection enrolled in the International Registry for Acute Dissection, 87 (4.7%) presented with cerebrovascular accident and 54 (2.9%) with coma. The hospital and 5-year results were stratified by the presence and type of brain injury (no injury vs stroke vs coma) and management type (medical vs surgical). Independent predictors of short- and mid-term survival were identified., Results: Presentation with shock, hypotension, or tamponade (46.8% vs 25.2%; P < .001) and arch vessel involvement (55.0% vs 36.1%; P < .001) was more likely in patients with brain injury. Surgical management was avoided more often in patients with coma (33.3%) or cerebrovascular accident (24.1%) than in those without brain injury (11.1%; P < .001). The overall hospital mortality was 22.7% without brain injury, 40.2% with cerebrovascular accident, and 63.0% with coma (P < .001). Mortality varied among the management types for both cerebrovascular accident (76.2% medical vs 27.0% surgical; P < .001) and coma (100% medical vs 44.4% surgical; P < .001). Postoperatively, cerebrovascular accident and coma resolved in 84.3% and 78.8% of cases, respectively. On logistic regression analysis, surgery was protective against mortality in patients presenting with brain injury (odds ratio 0.058; P < .001). The 5-year survival of patients presenting with cerebrovascular accident and coma was 23.8% and 0% after medical management versus 67.1% and 57.1% after surgery (log rank, P < .001), respectively., Conclusions: Brain injury at presentation adversely affects hospital survival of patients with type A acute aortic dissection. In the present observational study, the patients selected to undergo surgery demonstrated improved late survival and frequent reversal of neurologic deficits., (Copyright © 2013 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few data exist on clinical/imaging characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with type A acute dissection and mesenteric malperfusion., Methods: Patients with type A acute dissection enrolled in the International Registry for Acute Dissection (IRAD) were evaluated to assess differences in clinical features, management, and in-hospital outcomes according to the presence/absence of mesenteric malperfusion. A mortality model was used to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with mesenteric malperfusion., Results: Mesenteric malperfusion was detected in 68 (3.7%) of 1809 patients with type A acute dissection. Patients with mesenteric malperfusion were more likely to be older and to have coma, cerebrovascular accident, spinal cord ischemia, acute renal failure, limb ischemia, and any pulse deficit. They were less likely to undergo surgical/hybrid treatment (52.9% vs 87.9%) and more likely to receive only medical (30.9% vs 11.6%) or endovascular (16.2% vs 0.5%) management (P < .001). Overall in-hospital mortality was 63.2% and 23.8% in patients with and without mesenteric malperfusion, respectively (P < .001). In-hospital mortality of patients with mesenteric malperfusion receiving medical, endovascular, and surgical/hybrid therapy was 95.2%, 72.7%, and 41.7%, respectively (P < .001). At multivariate analysis, male gender (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; P = .002), age (OR, 1.1/y; P = .002), and renal failure (OR, 5.9; P = .020) were predictors of mortality whereas surgical/hybrid management (OR, 0.1; P = .005) was associated with better outcome., Conclusions: Type A acute aortic dissection complicated by mesenteric malperfusion is a rare but ominous complication carrying a high risk of hospital mortality. Surgical/hybrid therapy, although associated with 2-fold hospital mortality, appears to be associated with better long-term outcomes in the management of type A acute aortic dissection in this setting., (Copyright © 2013 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A considerable number of patients with acute type B aortic dissection (ABAD) treated with medical management alone will exhibit aortic enlargement during follow-up, which could lead to aortic aneurysm and rupture. The purpose of this study was to investigate predictors of aortic expansion among ABAD patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection., Methods: We analyzed 191 ABAD patients treated with medical therapy alone enrolled in the registry between 1996 and 2010, with available descending aortic diameter measurements at admission and during follow-up. The annual aortic expansion rate was calculated for all patients, and multivariate regression analysis was used to investigate factors affecting the expansion rate., Results: Aortic expansion was observed in 59% of ABAD patients; mean expansion rate was 1.7±7 mm/y. In multivariate analysis, white race (regression coefficient [RC], 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 7.7) and an initial aortic diameter less than 4.0 cm (RC, 6.3; 95% CI, 4.0 to 8.6) were associated with increased aortic expansion. Female sex (RC, -3.8; 95% CI, -6.1 to -1.4), intramural hematoma (RC, -3.8; 95% CI, -6.5 to -1.1), and use of calcium-channel blockers (RC, -3.8; 95% CI, -6.2 to -1.3) were associated with decreased aortic expansion., Conclusions: White race and a small initial aortic diameter were associated with increased aortic expansion during follow-up, and decreased aortic expansion was observed among women, patients with intramural hematoma, and those on calcium-channel blockers. These data raise the possibility that the use of calcium-channel blockers after ABAD may reduce the rate of aortic expansion, and therefore further investigation is warranted., (Copyright © 2012 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute aortic intramural hematoma (IMH) is an important subgroup of aortic dissection, and controversy surrounds appropriate management., Methods and Results: Patients with acute aortic syndromes in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (1996-2011) were evaluated to examine differences between patients (based on the initial imaging test) with IMH or classic dissection (AD). Of 2830 patients, 178 had IMH (64 type A [42%], 90 type B [58%], and 24 arch). Patients with IMH were older and presented with similar symptoms, such as severe pain. Patients with type A IMH were less likely to present with aortic regurgitation or pulse deficits and were more likely to have periaortic hematoma and pericardial effusion. Although type A IMH and AD were managed medically infrequently, type B IMH were more frequently treated medically. Overall in-hospital mortality was not statistically different for type A IMH compared to AD (26.6% versus 26.5%; P=0.998); type A IMH managed medically had significant mortality (40.0%), although less than classic AD (61.8%; P=0.195). Patients with type B IMH had a hospital mortality that was less but did not differ significantly (4.4% versus 11.1%; P=0.062) from classic AD. One-year mortality was not significantly different between AD and IMH., Conclusions: Acute IMH has similar presentation to classic AD but is more frequently complicated with pericardial effusions and periaortic hematoma. Patients with IMH have a mortality that does not differ statistically from those with classic AD. A small subgroup of type A IMH patients are managed medically and have a significant in-hospital mortality.

OBJECTIVES The management of aortic arch disease is complex. Open surgical management continues to evolve, and the introduction of endovascular repair is revolutionizing aortic arch surgery. Although these innovative techniques have generated the opportunity for better outcomes in select patients, they have also introduced confusion and uncertainty regarding best practices. METHODS In New York, we developed a collaborative group, the New York Aortic Consortium, as a means of cross-linking knowledge and working together to better understand and treat aortic disease. In our meeting in May 2023, regional aortic experts and invited international experts discussed the contemporary management of aortic arch disease, differences in interpretation of the available literature and the integration of endovascular technology into disease management. We summarized the current state of aortic arch surgery in this review article. RESULTS Approaches to aortic arch repair have evolved substantially, whether it be methods to reduce cerebral ischaemia, improve haemostasis, simplify future operations or expand options for high-risk patients with endovascular approaches. However, the transverse aortic arch remains challenging to repair. Among our collaborative group of cardiac/aortic surgeons, we discovered a wide disparity in our practice patterns and our management strategies of patients with aortic arch disease. CONCLUSIONS It is important to build unique institutional expertise in the context of complex and evolving management of aortic arch disease with open surgery, endovascular repair and hybrid approaches, tailored to the risk profiles and anatomical specifics of individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The frozen elephant trunk technique has revolutionized aortic arch repair to enable more extensive arch and descending thoracic aortic treatment in a single setting. We review the current evidence supporting the use of the Thoraflex Hybrid (Terumo Aortic, FL, USA) device and discuss advantages, pitfalls and future design considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open in new tab Download slide Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the addition of an aortic root replacement or sinus repair on mortality and morbidity during aortic arch repair. METHODS A total of 2472 patients underwent proximal or total aortic arch repair with hypothermic circulatory arrest between 2002 and 2018 at 12 centres. Multivariable logistic regressions (MV) and propensity score (PS) with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses were performed. RESULTS A total of 1099 (44.5%) patients had additional aortic root replacement (n  = 934) or sinus repair (n  = 165). Those with aortic root interventions were younger (61 ± 13 vs 64 ± 13 years, P  < 0.001) and had less females (23% vs 35%, P  < 0.001), less dissection (31% vs 36%, P  = 0.004), less urgent cases (35% vs 39%, P  = 0.047), more connective tissue disease (7% vs 3%, P  < 0.001) and less total arch replacements (14% vs 22%, P  < 0.001). On adjusted analyses, the addition of aortic root procedure was associated with increased mortality [MV: odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–1.92; PS-IPTW: risk increased by 3.7%, 95% CI 1.2–6.3%, P  = 0.004]. Reoperation for bleeding was also increased with the addition of aortic root intervention (MV: OR 1.48, 95% 1.10–1.99; PS-IPTW: risk increased by 3.2%, 95% CI 0.8–5.6%, P  = 0.009). The risks of stroke and dialysis-dependent renal failure were similar. When looking only at non-elective cases, the increased risk of mortality was more pronounced (MV: OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.11–2.32, P  = 0.013; PS-IPTW: risk increased by 6.8%, 95 CI 1.7–11.8%, P  = 0.008, and a number need to harm of 15 patients to cause 1 additional death). CONCLUSIONS The addition of aortic root replacement or sinus repair during proximal or total aortic arch repair seems to increase postoperative mortality only in non-elective cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Elderly patients are typically offered aortic surgery at similar diameter thresholds as younger patients, despite limited data quantifying their operative risk. We aim to report the incremental risk experienced by elderly patients undergoing aortic arch surgery. In total, 2520 patients underwent aortic arch surgery between 2002 and 2018 in 10 centers. Patients were divided into 3 groups: <65 years (n = 1325), 65 to 74 years (n = 737), and ≥75 years (n = 458). Outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality, stroke, and the modified Society of Thoracic Surgeons composite for mortality or major morbidity (STS-COMP). Multivariable modeling was performed to determine the association of age with these outcomes. As age increased, there was an increasing rate of comorbidities, including diabetes (P <.001), renal failure (P <.001), and previous stroke (P =.01). Rates of acute aortic syndrome (P =.50) and total arch repair were similar (P =.59) between groups. Older patients had greater mortality (<65: 6.1% vs 65-74: 9.0% vs ≥75: 14%, P <.001), stroke (6.3% vs 7.7% vs 11%, P =.01) and STS-COMP (25% vs 32% vs 38%, P <.001). After multivariable risk-adjustment, a step-wise increase in complications was observed in the older age groups relative to the youngest in terms of in-hospital mortality (65-74: odds ratio [OR] 1.57, P =.04; ≥75: OR, 2.94, P =.001) and STS-COMP (65-74: OR, 1.57, P <.001; ≥75: OR, 1.96, P <.001). Older patients experienced elevated rates of mortality and morbidity following aortic arch surgery. These results support a more measured approach when evaluating elderly patients. Further research is needed on age-dependent natural history of thoracic aneurysms and size thresholds for intervention. Major findings of study on aortic arch surgery in elderly patients. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Optimal management of acute aortic dissections (AD) with entry tear in the arch without ascending involvement (arch B AD) is not discussed in clinical guidelines. This study aims to better define this type of AD. Methods: Presentation, management, and in-hospital mortality of patients with arch B AD enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection were analyzed and compared to a control group of Stanford type B AD (TBAD) with entry tear in the descending aorta. Results: Patients with arch B AD (n=156) and TBAD (n=222) were not significantly different concerning demographics, except age, which was higher in TBAD patients (60±14 vs 64±14 years; p=0.024). Medical history, including hypertension, diabetes, bicuspid aortic valve, Marfan disease, renal insufficiency and COPD, was similar for both groups. On preoperative imaging, arch B AD patients had a larger median arch diameter (3.7 vs 3.5 cm; p=0.007) and smaller descending diameter (3.6 vs. 4.4 cm; p<0.001). The two groups were not different concerning preoperative complications such as shock, aortic rupture or neurological complications, except descending diameter >5.5 cm, which was less frequently seen for arch B AD (2.6% vs 13.5%; p<0.001). Arch B AD was more frequently treated with open surgery (19.9% vs. 10.8%; p=0.013) and less frequently managed medically (47.4% vs. 61.4%; p=0.007), while the frequency of endovascular treatment was similar (26.3% vs. 26.0%; P=0.953). The overall in-hospital mortality was higher for arch B AD (17.3% vs. 12.6%; p=0.196). This difference was driven primarily by those receiving open surgery (32.3% mortality for arch B AD vs. 16.7%; p=0.226), while mortality was similar after endovascular treatment (9.8% vs. 8.6%; p=1.0), and medical management (13.5% vs. 14.1%; p=1.0). Conclusions: Arch B AD is more frequently treated aggressively with open surgery, but associated mortality rates are high. A more conservative approach with either endovascular treatment or medical management may be preferable. In this respect, arch B AD may be comparable to TBAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Contemporary outcomes after surgical management of thoracic aortic disease have improved; however, the impact of sex-related differences is poorly understood.Methods: A total of 1653 patients (498 [30.1%] female) underwent thoracic aortic surgery with hypothermic circulatory arrest between 2002 and 2017 in 10 institutions of the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital death, stroke, and a modified Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined composite for mortality or major morbidity (stroke, renal failure, deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, prolonged ventilation). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of these outcomes.Results: Women were older (mean±SD, 66±13 years versus 61±13 years; P<0.001), with more hypertension and renal failure, but had less coronary disease, less previous cardiac surgery, and higher ejection fraction than men. Rates of aortic dissection were similar between women and men. Rates of hemiarch, and total arch repair were similar between the sexes; however, women underwent less aortic root reconstruction including aortic root replacement, Ross, or valve-sparing root operations (29% versus 45%; P<0.001). Men experienced longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, but similar durations of circulatory arrest, methods of cerebral perfusion, and nadir temperatures. Women experienced a higher rate of mortality (11% versus 7.4%; P=0.02), stroke (8.8% versus 5.5%; P=0.01), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined composite end point for mortality or major morbidity (31% versus 27%; P=0.04). On multivariable analyses, female sex was an independent predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 1.81; P<0.001), stroke (odds ratio, 1.90; P<0.001), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined composite end point for mortality or major morbidity (odds ratio, 1.40; P<0.001).Conclusions: Women experience worse outcomes after thoracic aortic surgery with hypothermic circulatory arrest. Further investigation is required to better delineate which measures may reduce sex-related outcome differences after complex aortic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]