Display options
Share it on

Aorta (Stamford). 2016 Apr 01;4(2):33-41. doi: 10.12945/j.aorta.2016.14.039. eCollection 2016 Apr.

Techniques of Proximal Root Reconstruction and Outcomes Following Repair of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

Aorta (Stamford, Conn.)

Tyler M Gunn, Sotiris C Stamou, Nicholas T Kouchoukos, Kevin W Lobdell, Kamal Khabbaz, Lawrence H Patzelt, Robert C Hagberg

Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA.
  2. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Missouri Baptist Medical Center, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
  3. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
  4. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery and The Cardiovascular Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  5. Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Spectrum Health, Fred and Lena Meijer Heart and Vascular Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.
  6. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA.

PMID: 27757401 PMCID: PMC5054754 DOI: 10.12945/j.aorta.2016.14.039

Abstract

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 (

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.

Keywords: Aorta; Aortic aneurysm; Aortic root; Aortic valve

References

  1. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002 Nov;74(5):S1848-52; discussion S1857-63 - PubMed
  2. Br J Surg. 2012 Oct;99(10):1331-44 - PubMed
  3. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010 Oct;90(4):1246-50 - PubMed
  4. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013 Jan;95(1):41-5 - PubMed
  5. Chest. 2000 May;117(5):1271-8 - PubMed
  6. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000 May;119(5):946-62 - PubMed
  7. Circulation. 2006 Dec 12;114(24):2611-8 - PubMed
  8. JAMA. 2000 Feb 16;283(7):897-903 - PubMed
  9. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002 Jul;74(1):75-81; discussion 81-2 - PubMed
  10. Eur Heart J. 2001 Sep;22(18):1642-81 - PubMed
  11. Circulation. 2002 Jan 15;105(2):200-6 - PubMed
  12. Int J Cardiol. 2013 Sep 10;167(6):2806-12 - PubMed
  13. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 Oct;15(5):286-93 - PubMed
  14. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012 Oct;94(4):1230-4 - PubMed
  15. Circulation. 2011 Jul 26;124(4):434-43 - PubMed
  16. N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 26;336(26):1876-88 - PubMed
  17. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003 Dec;126(6):1978-86 - PubMed
  18. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Oct;92(4):1376-82 - PubMed
  19. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012 Apr;93(4):1206-12; discussion 1212-4 - PubMed

Publication Types