The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2022
Preservation versus replacement of the aortic root for acute type A aortic dissection.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brown James A, Zhu Jianhui, Navid Forozan, Serna-Gallegos Derek, Sehra Rishabh, Warraich Nav, Bianco Valentino, Aranda-Michel Edgar, Sultan Ibrahim
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of aortic root preservation versus aortic root replacement (ARR) after acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair.
METHODS: In this observational study of consecutive aortic surgeries between 2007 and 2021, patients with ATAAD were identified via a prospectively maintained institutional database and were stratified by root preservation versus ARR (including valve-sparing and complete ARR). Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Among the 601 patients underwent aortic arch reconstruction for ATAAD, 370 (61.6%) underwent root preservation and the other 231 (38.4%) underwent ARR, with a median follow-up of 6.3 years (interquartile range, 3.8-9.6 years). Cardiopulmonary bypass and ischemic times were longer in the ARR group, but intraoperative variables were otherwise similar between the groups, including cannulation strategy and extent of distal repair. There were no between-group differences in postoperative outcomes, including operative mortality, stroke, mechanical ventilation time, renal failure, reexploration for bleeding, and total length of stay. At a 1-year follow-up, the incidence of aortic regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar in the 2 groups. On multivariable Cox regression, ARR was not associated with improved long-term survival compared with root preservation (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56; P = .44). Late reinterventions on the aortic root or valve were similar in the 2 groups and was 2.0% for the overall cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that aortic root preservation may achieve similar midterm outcomes as ARR after ATAAD repair.
METHODS: In this observational study of consecutive aortic surgeries between 2007 and 2021, patients with ATAAD were identified via a prospectively maintained institutional database and were stratified by root preservation versus ARR (including valve-sparing and complete ARR). Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Among the 601 patients underwent aortic arch reconstruction for ATAAD, 370 (61.6%) underwent root preservation and the other 231 (38.4%) underwent ARR, with a median follow-up of 6.3 years (interquartile range, 3.8-9.6 years). Cardiopulmonary bypass and ischemic times were longer in the ARR group, but intraoperative variables were otherwise similar between the groups, including cannulation strategy and extent of distal repair. There were no between-group differences in postoperative outcomes, including operative mortality, stroke, mechanical ventilation time, renal failure, reexploration for bleeding, and total length of stay. At a 1-year follow-up, the incidence of aortic regurgitation (moderate or greater) was similar in the 2 groups. On multivariable Cox regression, ARR was not associated with improved long-term survival compared with root preservation (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56; P = .44). Late reinterventions on the aortic root or valve were similar in the 2 groups and was 2.0% for the overall cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that aortic root preservation may achieve similar midterm outcomes as ARR after ATAAD repair.