Acute Aortic Dissection Type A in Younger Patients (< 60 Years Old) - Does Full Arch Replacement Provide Benefits Compared to Limited Approach?

ABSTRACT Introduction: Acute aortic dissection Stanford type A (AADA) is a surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. Although surgical management has improved, the optimal therapy is a matter of debate. Different surgical strategies have been proposed for patients under 60 years old. This paper evaluates the postoperative outcome and the need for secondary aortic operation after a limited surgical approach (proximal arch replacement) vs. extended arch repair. Methods: Between January 2000 and January 2018, 530 patients received surgical treatment for AADA at our hospital; 182 were under 60 years old and were enrolled in this study - Group A (n=68), limited arch repair (proximal arch replacement), and group B (n=114), extended arch repair (> proximal arch replacement). Results: More pericardial tamponade (P=0.005) and preoperative mechanical resuscitation (P=0.014) were seen in Group A. More need for renal replacement therapy (P=0.047) was seen in the full arch group. Mechanical ventilation time (P=0.022) and intensive care unit stay (P<0.001) were shorter in the limited repair group. Thirty-day mortality was comparable (P=0.117). New onset of postoperative stroke was comparable (Group A four patients [5.9%] vs. Group B 15 patients [13.2%]; P=0.120). Long-term follow-up did not differ significantly for secondary aortic surgery. Conclusion: Even though young patients received only limited arch repair, the outcome was comparable. Full-arch replacement was not beneficial in the long-time follow-up. A limited approach is justified in the cohort of young AADA patients. Exemptions, like known Marfan syndrome and the presence of an intimal tear in the arch, should be considered.

Asistencia ventricular intracorpórea en falla cardiaca terminal / Left ventricular assistant devices for end-stage heart failure: report of two cases

In the last 2 decades, there have been significant advances in medical treatment of heart failure. However, there is a group of patients who are refractory to the available medical therapy and progress inevitably to a state of end-stage heart failure, whose only therapeutic alternative is cardiac transplantation. But this is an option limited by the scarce availability of donors. Therefore many patients die waiting for an organ. Recently, extra or intracorporeal left ventricular devices have emerged as a viable alternative for patients with end-stage heart failure waiting for a heart transplant. These devices discharge the left ventricle, increasing cardiac output and improving systemic perfusion. This year, in our hospital we began a left ventricular device implantation program for the most severely ill patients on the waiting list for cardiac transplantation. We report two males aged 30 and 53 years, in whom a left ventricular device was successfully implanted, using a minimally invasive surgical technique developed at the University of Hannover in Germany.