Treatment Of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Research Articles

Thoraflex Hybrid vs. AMDS: To replace the arch or to stent it in type A aortic dissection?

Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life-threatening medical emergency that requires urgent surgical intervention. The mainstay surgical approach to treating ATAAD with aortic arch involvement is total arch replacement (TAR). The frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure involves TAR with hybrid endovascular stenting of the DTA in a single step using a hybrid prosthesis (HP). The prime example of a FET HP is Thoraflex Hybrid Prosthesis (THP). Another treatment option is the novel Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent (AMDS) that is deployed as a non-covered stent along with the aortic arch as an adjunct to prior hemi-arch replacement. This comparative review highlights the clinical applications and outcomes of THP and AMDS in the treatment of ATAAD and discusses the main differences between both approaches. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Ovid, Scopus and Embase. TAR with FET can be considered the superior approach to managing ATAAD with arch involvement relative to AMDS with hemi-arch replacement due to more optimal clinical outcomes. Upon comprehensively searching the literature, early mortality was substantially lower with FET ranging from 0-11% compared to 12.5-18.7% using AMDS, with more favourable long-term survival. The incidence of kidney injury and new stroke post-FET ranged from 3-20% and 5-16%, and 11-37.5% and 0-18.8% following AMDS implantation. However, evidence supporting the use of AMDS is extremely limited. Meanwhile, TAR with FET is a well-established and well-described procedure for ATAAD repair. Despite the novel nature of AMDS, its clinical safety and effectiveness are yet to be proven. In conclusion, THP remains the best evidenced-based approach to treat ATAAD in this era.

Extending Aortic Replacement Beyond the Proximal Arch in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Meta-Analysis of Short Term Outcomes and Long Term Actuarial Survival

The extent of aortic replacement during surgery for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is an important matter of debate. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the short and long term outcomes of a proximal aortic repair (PAR) vs. total arch replacement (TAR) in the treatment of ATAAD.

Hemiarch Versus Arch Replacement in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Is the Occam’s Razor Principle Applicable?

Background and aim of the study: In patients with acute Type A aortic dissection (A-AAD) whether repair should be limited to ascending aorta/hemiarch replacement or extended to include the aortic arch is still debated. We have analyzed our experience to compare outcomes of patients with A-AAD treated with these 2 different surgical strategies. Methods: From 2006 to 2020, a total of 213 patients have undergone repair of A-AAD at our Center; in 163 of them ascending aorta/hemiarch replacement (Group 1) and in 75 ascending aorta and arch replacement (Group 2) were performed. The primary endpoint was early survival and secondary endpoints late survival, freedom from late complications and reoperations. Patients were compared according to era of operation: 2006 to 2013 (Era 1) and 2014 to 2020 (Era 2). Results: Overall hospital mortality was 12% and 5% in Group 1 and 2; mortality remained stable in Era 1 and 2 for Group 1 (15%), while it decreased from 8% to 1% in Group 2 patients (p = 0.24). Actuarial survival at 5 and 10 years is 72 ± 4% and 49 ± 5% in Group 1 and 77 ± 6% and 66 ± 9% in Group 2 (p = 0.073). Actuarial freedom from reoperation in the entire series is 94 ± 2% and 92 ± 3% at 5 and 10 years. Freedom from reoperation at 5 and 10 years is 92 ± 2% and 89 ± 3% in Group 1 and 98 ± 1% at all intervals in Group 2 (p = 0.068). Conclusions: An aggressive approach to A-AAD provides superior long-term results without increasing mortality. Furthermore, arch replacement during A-AAD repair represents a more stable solution with lower incidence of late aortic-related complications. Immediate aortic arch replacement should be considered in the treatment of A-AAD especially in experienced centers.

Influence of Age on Postoperative Neurological Outcomes after Surgery of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

Background: Acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) is considered a fatal disease which requires an emergent surgical intervention. This study focuses onthe neurological outcome after surgical repair in cases of AAAD in comparison between elderly and young patients. Methods: a retrospective analysis of 368 consecutive patients who underwent emergency surgery of ascending aorta in moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest (MHCA) (20–24 °C) and antegrade cerebral perfusion after AAAD between 2001 and 2016. Patients were divided into two groups: those aged 75 years and older (68 (18.5%)) and those younger than 75 years (300 (81.5%)). Results: Comparing both groups, average age was 79.0 ± 3.2 vs. 59.2 ± 10.7 years (p < 0.001); female gender represents 58.8% of elderly patients vs. 28.7% in younger patients (p < 0.001). Intraoperatively, cardiopulmonary bypass time (155 min (131; 187) vs. 171 min (137; 220); p = 0.012), cross-clamping time (79 min (60; 105) vs. 93 min (71; 134); p = 0.001] and circulatory arrest time (29 min (22; 40) vs. 33 min (26; 49); p = 0.011) were significantly shorter in elderly than younger group. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in delirium (11.8% vs. 20.5%; p = 0.0968) or stroke (11.8% vs. 16.1%; p = 0.369). The 30-day mortality was satisfactory for both groups but significantly higher in the elderly group (27.9% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.007). Conclusion: The current study concluded that surgical treatment of AAAD in elderly patients can be applied safely without increasing risk of neurological complication. However, minimizing operation time may help limit the occurrence of postoperative neurological complication.

Early Results of the PETTICOAT Technique for the Management of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

Conventional surgical techniques for acute Type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) generally fail to address residual dissection in the descending aorta. The persistence of a false lumen is associated with visceral malperfusion in the acute setting and adverse aortic remodeling in the chronic setting. Hybrid aortic arch repair techniques may improve perioperative and long-term mortality by expanding the true lumen and obliterating the false lumen. However, there is a limit to the extent of aortic coverage due to the concomitant risk of spinal cord ischemia. In Type B dissection, the PETTICOAT (Provisional Extension To Induce Complete Attachment) technique, which entails stent graft coverage of the primary intimal tear followed by bare metal stent placement distally, may improve true lumen caliber and promote false lumen thrombosis without increasing the risk of spinal cord ischemia, as intercostal branches remain perfused through the bare metal stents. The technique of hybrid arch with surgical creation of a Dacron landing zone covering a stent graft in the proximal descending aorta and bare metal stents in the thoraco-abdominal aorta is a promising concept in the treatment of ATAAD.