Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022
Clinical outcomes of limited repair and conservative approaches in older patients with acute type A 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.
Maze Yasumi, Tokui Toshiya, Murakami Masahiko, Nakamura Bun, Inoue Ryosai, Hirano Reina, Hirano Koji
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surgical indication and the selection of surgical procedures for acute type A aortic dissection in older patients are controversial; therefore, we aimed to examine the surgical outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection in older patients.
METHODS: From January 2012 through December 2019, 174 patients underwent surgical repair for acute type A aortic dissection. We compared the surgical outcomes between the older (≥ 80 years old) and below-80 (≤ 79 years old) age groups. Additionally, we compared the outcomes between the surgical and conservative treatment groups.
RESULTS: The primary entry was found in the ascending aorta in 51.6% and 32.8% of the older and below-80 groups, respectively (p = 0.049). Ascending or hemiarch replacement was performed in all older group patients and 57.3% of the below-80 group patients (total arch replacement was performed in the remaining 42.7%; p < 0.001). Hospital mortality rates were similar in both groups. The significant risk factors for hospital mortality were age, preoperative intubation, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and postoperative stroke. The 5-year survival rates were 48.4% ± 10.3% (older group) and 86.7% ± 2.9% (below-80 group; p < 0.001). The rates of freedom from aortic events at 5 years were 86.9% ± 8.7% (older group) and 86.5% ± 3.9% (below-80 group; p = 0.771). The 5-year survival rate of the conservative treatment subgroup was 19.2% ± 8.0% in the older group, which was not significantly different from that of the surgical treatment subgroup (p = 0.103).
CONCLUSION: The surgical approach did not achieve a significant survival advantage over conservative treatment and may not always be a reasonable treatment of choice for older patients.
METHODS: From January 2012 through December 2019, 174 patients underwent surgical repair for acute type A aortic dissection. We compared the surgical outcomes between the older (≥ 80 years old) and below-80 (≤ 79 years old) age groups. Additionally, we compared the outcomes between the surgical and conservative treatment groups.
RESULTS: The primary entry was found in the ascending aorta in 51.6% and 32.8% of the older and below-80 groups, respectively (p = 0.049). Ascending or hemiarch replacement was performed in all older group patients and 57.3% of the below-80 group patients (total arch replacement was performed in the remaining 42.7%; p < 0.001). Hospital mortality rates were similar in both groups. The significant risk factors for hospital mortality were age, preoperative intubation, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and postoperative stroke. The 5-year survival rates were 48.4% ± 10.3% (older group) and 86.7% ± 2.9% (below-80 group; p < 0.001). The rates of freedom from aortic events at 5 years were 86.9% ± 8.7% (older group) and 86.5% ± 3.9% (below-80 group; p = 0.771). The 5-year survival rate of the conservative treatment subgroup was 19.2% ± 8.0% in the older group, which was not significantly different from that of the surgical treatment subgroup (p = 0.103).
CONCLUSION: The surgical approach did not achieve a significant survival advantage over conservative treatment and may not always be a reasonable treatment of choice for older patients.