Is Compliance With Guideline Recommended Follow-Up After Aortic Dissection Associated With Survival?

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute aortic dissection (AD) remain at risk for long-term complications and thus are recommended to adhere closely to American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association aorta guideline-based follow-up imaging and clinic visits. The long-term outcomes of compliance with such a model are not well understood. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients at a regional AD center who survived hospital discharge for AD and who were analyzed by compliance with initial follow-up at 3 months and long term after AD. The primary end point was death. RESULTS: A total of 172 (66% type A; 33% type B) patients survived hospitalization and were followed up over 48 months (interquartile range [IQR], 21, 88 months). Of these patients, 122 (71%) attended the first follow-up appointment, and 90 (52%) attended more than two-thirds of recommended appointments. Patients who attended the first follow-up visit had improved long-term follow-up compliance (75% [IQR, 50%, 91%]) compared with patients who did not attend the first visit (18% [IQR, 0%, 57%]). Noncompliance with the scheduled long-term follow-up was associated with a 50% increase in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2, 2.1; P < .001). Furthermore, in patients with low compliance (consistently attending less than one-third of follow-up appointments), the lifetime risk of death after AD was more than double that of patients with high compliance (consistently attending more than two-thirds of appointments) (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.5, 3.1; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients with AD do not attend the first recommended follow-up visit, and such failure was associated with later noncompliance with subsequent follow-up. Low-compliant patients have double the lifetime risk of death after AD than do high-compliant patients.

Impact of a multidisciplinary acute aortic dissection program: Improved outcomes with a comprehensive initial surgical repair strategy.

OBJECTIVE: As part of a multidisciplinary aortic dissection (AD) program, a more comprehensive repair strategy for patients with acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) and frequent endografting for suitable patients with type B aortic dissection (ATBAD) was adopted in 2015. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of these changes. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of a prospective database containing all patients treated for acute AD between 2003 and 2020. Patients were grouped based on differing repair strategies (pre 2015 vs post 2015). Clinical characteristics, procedural details, and survival data were analyzed. RESULTS: During this time, 323 patients (210 pre, 113 post) were treated for acute AD at our institution. There were 221 patients with ATAAD (149 pre, 72 post) and 102 patients with ATBAD (61 pre, 41 post). The majority (60%) were males, with a mean age of 65.9 ± 15.2 years. There were no differences in cardiovascular risk factors or demographics between the groups. After 2015, fewer patients with ATAAD underwent medical management alone (15% pre vs 4% post; P = .014), and most that underwent surgical intervention had a total arch or aggressive hemiarch repair (27% pre vs 78% post; P < .001). Seventy-four patients (73%) with ATBAD were treated medically, whereas 28 underwent medical management and endografting (23% pre, 34% post; P = .214). For all patients with AD, 30-day mortality was significantly improved (26% pre vs 10% post; P < .001) especially among patients who underwent ATAAD surgery (23% pre vs 9% post; P = .018). Three-year Kaplan-Meier survival estimates showed survival improvement among patients with ATAAD (Log rank P-value = .019); however, this improvement does not extend to type B dissections or the overall cohort. A survival analysis landmarked to 30 days after initial presentation showed no statistical difference in survival from 30 days to 3 years post-presentation. CONCLUSIONS: A more comprehensive repair strategy in the management of patients with acute AD resulted in improved overall patient outcomes and significantly decreased 30-day mortality, even though more complex repairs were performed. The long-term impact of the changes made to our program remains to be evaluated.

Aortic Size and Clinical Care Pathways Before Type A Aortic Dissection.

Patients with aortic enlargement are recommended to undergo serial imaging and clinical follow-up until they reach surgical thresholds. This study aimed to identify aortic diameter and care of patients with aortic imaging before aortic dissection (AD). In a retrospective cohort of AD patients, we evaluated previous imaging results in addition to ordering providers and indications. Imaging was stratified as >1 or <1 year: 62 patients (53% men) had aortic imaging before AD (most recent test: 82% echo, 11% computed tomography, 6% magnetic resonance imaging). Imaging was ordered most frequently by primary care physicians (35%) and cardiologists (39%). The most frequent imaging indications were arrhythmia (11%), dyspnea (10%), before or after aortic valve surgery (8%), chest pain (6%), and aneurysm surveillance in 13%. Of all patients, 94% had aortic diameters below the surgical threshold before the AD. Imaging was performed <1 year before AD in 47% and aortic size was 4.4 ± 0.8 cm in ascending aorta and 4.0 ± 0.8 cm in sinus. In patients whose most recent imaging was >1 year before AD (1,317 ± 1,017 days), the mean ascending aortic diameter was 4.2 ± 0.4 cm. In conclusion, in a series of patients with aortic imaging before AD, the aortic size was far short of surgical thresholds in 94% of the group. In >50%, imaging was last performed >1 year before dissection.

Multidisciplinary shock team is associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing ECPR.

OBJECTIVES: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) has been increasingly used in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in select patients. Few centers have published their experience or outcomes with ECPR. The aim of our study was to evaluate outcomes of adult patients in cardiac arrest placed on VA ECMO in the catheterization laboratory. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients in refractory cardiac arrest who underwent ECPR at the Minneapolis Heart Institute (MHI) at Abbott Northwestern Hospital from January 2012 to December 2017. Relevant data were obtained from electronic medical records, including arrest to ECMO flow time, total ECMO support time, and outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-six adult patients underwent ECPR at the study site during the defined time period. Seven patients (27%) sustained cardiac arrest out of hospital, 19 patients arrested in-hospital with eight of those occurring in the catheterization laboratory. Seventeen (65%) patients had initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia (VF/VT). All patients underwent mechanical CPR with LUCAS device. Overall 30 day and 6 month survival was 69%. Median time from arrest to ECMO flow was 46 mins (21,68) vs 61 mins (36,71) in survivors and non-survivors, respectively. Sixteen of 18 survivors discharged with a CPC score of 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that adult patients in cardiac arrest initiated on VA ECMO in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and cared for by a multidisciplinary shock team in the critical care unit have superior long-term survival and functionally favorable neurologic recovery when compared to current literature.