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.

Modified Technique for Retrograde Cerebral Perfusion during Hemiarch Aortic Replacement

Background Uncertainty remains regarding the optimal method of brain protection for procedures that require repair or replacement of the aortic arch. We examined the early outcomes of a technique for brain protection in patients undergoing partial aortic arch (hemiarch) replacement that involves deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) and retrograde cerebral perfusion (RCP) of cold blood from the superior vena cava toward the end of the arrest interval. Methods During a recent 15-year interval, 520 patients underwent elective or urgent/emergent ascending aortic and hemiarch replacement as an isolated (47 patients) or combined (473 patients) procedure employing DHCA (mean nasopharyngeal temperature at circulatory arrest, 17.1°C and mean duration, 19.3 minutes) supplemented with RCP of cold blood from the superior vena cava toward the end of the arrest interval (mean, 6.7 minutes). The mean age of the patients was 59.5 years, and 65% were male. Results The in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were 1.2% (six patients). Seven patients (1.4%) sustained a stroke and 19 patients (3.7%) had transient neurologic dysfunction that completely resolved by the time of hospital discharge. Four patients (0.77%) developed postoperative renal failure requiring dialysis. Twenty-one patients (4%) required ventilator support for >48 hours and five patients (0.96%) required a tracheostomy. The median hospital length of stay was 6 days. Conclusion DHCA with a brief interval of RCP is a safe and effective technique for brain protection during hemiarch aortic replacement. RCP reduces the duration of brain ischemia and permits removal of particulate matter and air from the arterial circulation.

Word of caution on adding hemiarch replacement to a proximal aortic aneurysm repair: long-term outcome analysis of over 1,000 patients

Background There is no consensus nor recommendation for the surgical management of a minimally dilated adjacent aortic segment, such as the proximal aortic arch, at the time of proximal aortic aneurysm repair. Consequently, clinical equipoise exists regarding whether to extend the proximal aortic aneurysm repair to include the proximal aortic arch, by performing a hemiarch replacement, to mitigate the future risk of aortic aneurysm-related events in the proximal aortic arch. We hypothesized that additional hemiarch replacement to excise a non- or minimally aneurysmal proximal aortic arch does not have clinical benefit in patients undergoing proximal aortic aneurysm repair. Purpose To compare the long-term survival and freedom from aortic-arch reoperation in patients undergoing proximal aortic aneurysm repair with and without additional hemiarch replacement. Methods A retrospective review was performed of all patients undergoing proximal aortic aneurysm repair at our Aortic Center between 2005 and 2019. Inclusion criteria included all patients with a diagnosed root or ascending aortic aneurysm undergoing root or ascending aortic replacement with or without hemiarch replacement. Exclusion criteria were Age <18 years, presence of aortic arch diameter ≥4.5 cm, type A aortic dissection, previous ascending aortic replacement, aneurysm rupture, and endocarditis. A total of 1132 patients (hemiarch =307) met inclusion criteria. Propensity score matching in a 2:1 ratio (573 non-hemiarch: 288 hemiarch) on 19 baseline characteristics was performed. The median follow-up was 29.7 months (range: 0.1–153.8 months). Results Hemiarch patients had a significantly lower 10-year survival rate (86.7%; 95% CI, 79.2–94.8 in non-hemiarch vs 81.9%; 95% CI, 75.9–88.3 in hemiarch; P=0.005). There was no significant difference in 10- year cumulative incidence of aortic-arch reintervention (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.3–1.9 in non-hemiarch vs 0.69%; 95% CI, 0.17–2.75 in hemiarch; P=0.99). Hemiarch patients had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (1% in non-hemiarch vs 4% in hemiarch; P<0.001), stroke (3% in non-hemiarch vs 6% in hemiarch; P=0.047), reoperation for bleeding (4% in non-hemiarch vs 9% in hemiarch; P=0.011), and respiratory failure (7% in non-hemiarch vs 13% in hemiarch; P=0.006). In multivariable COX analysis, hemiarch replacement was significantly associated with long-term mortality (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.36–3.55; P<.001) but not with aortic-arch reintervention (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.63–2.10, P=0.66). Conclusions Proximal aortic aneurysm repair with additional hemiarch was associated with higher mortality without a decrease in aortic-arch reintervention rates compared to isolated proximal aortic aneurysm repair. Furthermore, aortic arch reintervention rate was extremely low. These data call for caution in adding hemiarch replacement at the time of proximal aortic aneurysm repair. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): National Institute of Heath (NIH) 5T35HL007616-40 grant Matched Cohort: KM Survival Curve Matched Cohort: Cumulative Incidence

Sterile peri-graft abscess formation following aortic replacement: A word of caution for usage of BioGlue®

We report sterile peri-graft abscess formation following an ascending aortic and hemiarch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection, possibly caused as a reaction to BioGlue®. The patient was successfully treated by drainage, cleaning, removal of BioGlue® remnants, three sessions of negative-pressure wound dressing, and secondary chest closure.

Clinical Outcomes of Limited-repair Strategy and Conservative Approach for the Elderly With Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

BackgroundThere is controversy regarding surgical indication and surgical procedure of acute type A aortic dissection for the elderly. We examined surgical outcomes for the elderly.MethodsFrom January 2012 to December 2019, 174 patients underwent surgical repair for acute type A aortic dissection. We compared the surgical outcomes between the elderly group (≧80 years old) and the non-elderly group (≦79 years old). Additionally, we compared the surgical treatment group with the conservative treatment group.ResultsThe primary entry was found in the ascending aorta in 51.6% of the elderly group and in 32.8% of the non-elderly group (p= 0.049). In the elderly group, ascending or hemiarch replacement was performed in all cases, while in the non-elderly group, ascending or hemiarch replacement was performed in 57.3% (p<0.001). The hospital mortality was similar in both groups. The 5-year survival rate was 48.4±10.3% in the elderly group and 86.7±2.9% in the non-elderly group (p<0.001). The rates of freedom from aortic event at 5 years was 86.9±8.7% in the elderly group and 86.5±3.9% in the non-elderly group (p=0.771). The 5-year survival rate of conservative treatment group was 19.2±8.0% in the elderly. There was no significant difference from the surgical treatment group (p=0.103).ConclusionsThe surgical approach may not always be the reasonable treatment of choice for the elderly because the significant survival merit was not achieved compared with the conservative approach.

Amplatzer Vascular Plug for Complicated Residual DeBakey Type 1 Aortic Dissection in the Aortic Arch

Surgical treatment of acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection does not address the entire aorta, which can leave anatomically complex residual aortic dissection in the aortic arch and descending aorta. Open repair has been the standard treatment for this pathology. When the lesions are located in the aortic arch, re-do total arch replacement needs to be performed. Plug placement to close small entry tears in the aortic arch has been reported. This article reports about a 79-year-old man who underwent hemiarch replacement for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection. One year later, his proximal descending aorta dilated to 6.3 cm. The patient was treated with Amplatzer plug in the false lumen, and a stent graft was placed in the true lumen. Follow-up computed tomography scan confirmed complete thrombosis of the false lumen in the descending aorta which had decreased from 6.3 to 4.0 cm. Plug placement in the false lumen in the aortic arch is a potential treatment strategy for anatomically complex residual aortic dissection to induce thrombosis of the false lumen and encourage remodeling.