General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023
Outcomes of ascending aorta and partial arch replacement with entry resection for DeBakey type I acute aortic dissection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Fukunaga Naoto, Wakami Tatsuto, Shimoji Akio, Maeda Toshi, Mori Otohime, Yoshizawa Kosuke, Tamura Nobushige
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated early and late outcomes between ascending aorta/partial arch replacement and total arch replacement with entry resection in DeBakey type I acute aortic dissection (DIAAD) repair.
METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 98 patients who underwent DIAAD repair from January 2005 to December 2020. Seventy-four patients underwent ascending aorta and partial arch replacement with entry resection (Non-TAR group), and 24 underwent total arch replacement with entry resection (TAR group). The mean follow-up period was 4.8 ± 3.2 years. The follow-up rate was 92.3%. The mean age in the Non-TAR and TAR groups was 68.8 ± 10.4 years and 61.6 ± 13.7 years, respectively (P = 0.046). No difference in preoperative shock and malperfusion syndrome was observed between the groups. Hospital death was observed in 5.4% and 12.5% of the Non-TAR and TAR groups, respectively (P = 0.241). Postoperative permanent neurologic deficits and temporary hemodialysis were more frequently seen in the TAR compared to the Non-TAR group (P = 0.03 and 0.003, respectively). The 5-year survival rates were 95.1% ± 3.4% and 89.2% ± 7.2% in the Non-TAR and TAR groups, respectively (Log-rank P = 0.603). Freedom from downstream aorta-related reinterventions at 5 years was 87.8% ± 4.5% and 64.1% ± 11.0% in the Non-TAR and TAR groups, respectively (Log-rank P = 0.007). Three patients in each group underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for residual aortic dissection.
CONCLUSIONS: Early and late outcomes in the Non-TAR group were satisfactory compared to those in the TAR group. Entry resection with graft replacement remains a standard approach in DIAAD repair.
METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 98 patients who underwent DIAAD repair from January 2005 to December 2020. Seventy-four patients underwent ascending aorta and partial arch replacement with entry resection (Non-TAR group), and 24 underwent total arch replacement with entry resection (TAR group). The mean follow-up period was 4.8 ± 3.2 years. The follow-up rate was 92.3%. The mean age in the Non-TAR and TAR groups was 68.8 ± 10.4 years and 61.6 ± 13.7 years, respectively (P = 0.046). No difference in preoperative shock and malperfusion syndrome was observed between the groups. Hospital death was observed in 5.4% and 12.5% of the Non-TAR and TAR groups, respectively (P = 0.241). Postoperative permanent neurologic deficits and temporary hemodialysis were more frequently seen in the TAR compared to the Non-TAR group (P = 0.03 and 0.003, respectively). The 5-year survival rates were 95.1% ± 3.4% and 89.2% ± 7.2% in the Non-TAR and TAR groups, respectively (Log-rank P = 0.603). Freedom from downstream aorta-related reinterventions at 5 years was 87.8% ± 4.5% and 64.1% ± 11.0% in the Non-TAR and TAR groups, respectively (Log-rank P = 0.007). Three patients in each group underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair for residual aortic dissection.
CONCLUSIONS: Early and late outcomes in the Non-TAR group were satisfactory compared to those in the TAR group. Entry resection with graft replacement remains a standard approach in DIAAD repair.