Journal of thoracic disease · 2021
Comparison of outcomes in DeBakey type I versus DeBakey type II aortic dissection: a 17-year single center experience.
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.
Salehi Ravesh Mona, Salem Mohamed, Lutter Georg, Friedrich Christine, Walter Veronika, Puehler Thomas, Cremer Jochen, Haneya Assad
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It is controversial if the type or the size of aortic dissection is associated with the mortality in patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD) type I or type II according to DeBakey. Due to the pronounced aortic pathology in DeBakey type I compared to DeBakey type II, it is to be expected, that the DeBakey type I is associated with a significant higher morbidity and mortality. But we hypothesize that the current advances in surgical techniques, circulatory management, and postoperative care improve the clinical outcome of patients with DeBakey type I and II. The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the effect of these parameters on surgical outcome in patients with DeBakey type I and type II in a large cohort study.
METHODS: From 2001 to 2019, 395 consecutive patients (34.2% female) underwent surgical aortic repair at our institution. Patients were retrospectively classified into 2 groups: patients with type 1 dissection (group 1: n=309, median age of 62.0 years) and patients with type 2 dissection (group 2: n=86, 67.5 years). Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier estimator. Risk factors were analyzed by logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: The patients in group 1 suffered significantly more often from coronary heart disease [43 (13.9%) vs. 20 (23.3%), P=0.036]. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between both groups concerning preoperative risk factors. The median surgical duration (279 vs. 263 min, P=0.026) and the circulatory arrest time (35 vs. 27 min, P<0.001) in group 1 were significantly higher. In a significantly higher number of patients in group 1, the aortic arch was completely replaced (18.4% vs. 1.2%, P<0.001) and a simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting [18 (5.8%) vs. 11 (12.8%), P=0.028] was performed. The rate of re-thoracotomy [62 (20.1%) vs. 9 (10.5%), P=0.040], of postoperative delirium [66 (21.4%) vs. 9 (10.6%), P=0.024], and of tracheotomy [85 (27.5%) vs. 14 (16.3%), P=0.034] were significantly higher in group 1. Thirty-day mortality was 15.7% and did not differ significantly between both groups (P=0.867), as well as the long-term survival rates (P=0.956).
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the pronounced aortic pathology in type I compared to type II, it is to be expected, that the type I is associated with a significant higher morbidity and mortality. DeBakey type I was an independent predictor for 30-day mortality in our study, however, based on our 17-year single center experience there was no difference between the long-term survival in both groups.
METHODS: From 2001 to 2019, 395 consecutive patients (34.2% female) underwent surgical aortic repair at our institution. Patients were retrospectively classified into 2 groups: patients with type 1 dissection (group 1: n=309, median age of 62.0 years) and patients with type 2 dissection (group 2: n=86, 67.5 years). Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier estimator. Risk factors were analyzed by logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: The patients in group 1 suffered significantly more often from coronary heart disease [43 (13.9%) vs. 20 (23.3%), P=0.036]. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between both groups concerning preoperative risk factors. The median surgical duration (279 vs. 263 min, P=0.026) and the circulatory arrest time (35 vs. 27 min, P<0.001) in group 1 were significantly higher. In a significantly higher number of patients in group 1, the aortic arch was completely replaced (18.4% vs. 1.2%, P<0.001) and a simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting [18 (5.8%) vs. 11 (12.8%), P=0.028] was performed. The rate of re-thoracotomy [62 (20.1%) vs. 9 (10.5%), P=0.040], of postoperative delirium [66 (21.4%) vs. 9 (10.6%), P=0.024], and of tracheotomy [85 (27.5%) vs. 14 (16.3%), P=0.034] were significantly higher in group 1. Thirty-day mortality was 15.7% and did not differ significantly between both groups (P=0.867), as well as the long-term survival rates (P=0.956).
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the pronounced aortic pathology in type I compared to type II, it is to be expected, that the type I is associated with a significant higher morbidity and mortality. DeBakey type I was an independent predictor for 30-day mortality in our study, however, based on our 17-year single center experience there was no difference between the long-term survival in both groups.