CC BY 4.0 · Aorta (Stamford) 2016; 04(02): 33-41
DOI: 10.12945/j.aorta.2016.14.039
Original Research Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

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

Tyler M. Gunn
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
,
Sotiris C. Stamou
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
,
Nicholas T. Kouchoukos
2   Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Missouri Baptist Medical Center, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
,
Kevin W. Lobdell
3   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
,
Kamal Khabbaz
4   Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery and The Cardiovascular Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
,
Lawrence H. Patzelt
5   Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Spectrum Health, Fred and Lena Meijer Heart and Vascular Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
,
Robert C. Hagberg
6   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

28 June 2014

04 February 2016

Publication Date:
24 September 2018 (online)

Zoom Image

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 (p = 0.459) was comparable between groups. Hemorrhage related re-exploration did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.182); however, root replacement procedures tended to have decreased rates of bleeding when compared to AVR (p = 0.067). The 10-year actuarial survival rates for the AV resuspension, Bentall, and AVR groups were 72%, 56%, and 36%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.035).

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.