Outcomes of two-stage type II hybrid aortic arch repair in elderly patients with acute type A aortic dissection

Le résumé fourni par la source

Acute type A aortic dissection (a-TAAD) is a severe disease characterized by high mortality, which can be fatal in elderly patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of two-stage type II hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR) in elderly patients with acute type A aortic dissection (a-TAAD). This was a single-center, retrospective study involving 119 patients with a-TAAD, including 82 males and 37 females, aged 22-81 years old. Eighty-eight patients underwent total aortic arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation (TAR with FET group) and 31 patients underwent two-stage type II HAR (HAR group). Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for preoperative data, and match 25 pairs. The preoperative, perioperative, postoperative and follow-up data were recorded. Fifteen patients died during the perioperative period; 13 cases were in the TAR with FET group and 2 cases were in the HAR group. The age, body mass index, cerebral infarction, renal insufficiency were significantly higher, and the 24-h fluid drainage, the incidence of acute liver injury, acute kidney injury and pulmonary infection were lower in the HAR group (all P < 0.05). Moreover, the mechanical ventilation time, intensive care unit time, hospital stay time were shorter in the HAR group (all P < 0.05). The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 54 months, with 7 deaths (9.3%) in the TAR with FET group and 2 deaths (6.9%) in the HAR group. The true lumen of the aortic arch and the middle descending thoracic aorta were larger and the false lumen thrombosis rates of the middle descending thoracic aorta and renal artery level were higher in the HAR group (all P < 0.05). Two-stage type II HAR is a safe and effective method for the treatment of elderly patients with a-TAAD. It may be a good choice for elderly patients with a-TAAD and comorbidities.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.