AUTHOR=Narita Masahiko , Tsutsui Masahiro , Ushioda Ryouhei , Kikuchi Yuta , Shirasaka Tomonori , Ishikawa Natsuya , Kamiya Hiroyuki TITLE=Proximal and extended aortic arch replacement in acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection JOURNAL=Frontiers in Surgery VOLUME=10 YEAR=2023 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/surgery/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1081167 DOI=10.3389/fsurg.2023.1081167 ISSN=2296-875X ABSTRACT=Objective

This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of proximal repair vs. extensive arch surgery for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection.

Subjects

From April 2014 to September 2020, 121 consecutive patients with acute type A dissection were surgically treated at our institute. Of these patients, 92 had dissections extending beyond the ascending aorta.

Methods

Of the 92 patients, 58 underwent proximal repair, including aortic root and/or hemiarch replacement, and 34 underwent extended repair, including partial and total arch replacement. Perioperative variables and early and late postoperative results were statistically analyzed.

Results

The duration of surgery, cardiopulmonary bypass, and circulatory arrest was significantly shorter in the proximal repair group (p < 0.01). The overall operative mortality rate was 10.3% in the proximal repair group and 14.7% in the extended repair group (p = 0.379). The mean follow-up period was 31.1 ± 26.7 months in the proximal repair group and 35.3 ± 26.8 months in the extended repair group. During follow-up, the cumulative survival and freedom from reintervention rates at 5 years were 66.4% and 92.9% in the proximal repair group, and 76.1% and 72.6% in the extended repair group, respectively (p = 0.515 and p = 0.134).

Conclusions

No significant differences were found in the rates of long-term cumulative survival and freedom from aortic reintervention between the two surgical strategies. These findings suggest limited aortic resection achieves acceptable patient outcomes.