Different aortic arch surgery methods for type A aortic dissection: clinical outcomes and follow-up results

Abstract

Abstract OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes and follow-up results among 5 main aortic arch surgery methods for type A aortic dissection in a single centre. METHODS From 2002 to 2018, 958 type A aortic dissection patients who received surgical repair were divided into 5 groups according to the arch surgery method: hemiarch replacement (n = 206), island arch replacement (n = 54), total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (n = 425), triple-branched stent (n = 39) and fenestrated stent (n = 234). The indications for the different arch methods were related to the patient’s preoperative status, the location and extent of the dissection and the surgical ability of the surgeons. A comparative study was performed to identify the differences in the perioperative data, and the Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to assess the long-term survival and reintervention rates. Thirty matched surviving patients that were included in each group completed Computed tomography angiography to determine long-term reshaping effect. RESULTS The 30-day mortality rate was 15.8%, and there was no difference among the 5 groups (P = 0.848). The follow-up survival rates were similar among the 5 groups (P = 0.130), and the same was true for patients without reintervention (P = 0.471). In the propensity matching study, patients with stents (frozen elephant trunk, triple-branched stent, fenestrated stent) had a slower aortic dilation rate and a higher ratio of thrombosis in the false lumen at the descending aortic and abdominal aortic levels than patients without stents. CONCLUSIONS No standard method is available for arch surgery, and indications and long-term effects should be identified with clinical data. In our experiences, simpler surgical procedures could reduce mortality in critically ill patients and stents in the distal aorta could improve long-term reshape effects.