Safety and effectiveness of proximal aortic repair versus total arch replacement for the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

@#Objective    To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of proximal aortic repair (PAR) versus total arch replacement (TAR) for treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). Methods     An electronic search was conducted for clinical controlled studies on PAR versus TAR for patients with ATAAD published in Medline via PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Database and CNKI since their inception up to April 30, 2022. The quality of each study included was assessed by 2 evaluators and the necessary data were extracted. STATA 16 software was used to perform statistical analysis of the available data. Results    A total of 28 cohort studies involving 7 923 patients with ATAAD were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 5 710 patients received PAR and 2 213 patients underwent TAR, and 96.43% of the studies (27/28) were rated as high quality. The meta-analysis results showed that: (1) patients who underwent PAR had lower incidences of 30 d mortality [RR=0.62, 95%CI (0.50, 0.77), P<0.001], in-hospital mortality [RR=0.64, 95%CI (0.54, 0.77), P<0.001], and neurologic deficiency after surgery [RR=0.84, 95%CI (0.72, 0.98), P=0.032] than those who received TAR; (2) the cardiopulmonary bypass time [WMD=–52.07, 95%CI (–74.19, –29.94), P<0.001], circulatory arrest time [WMD=–10.14, 95%CI (–15.02, –5.26), P<0.001], and operation time [WMD=–101.68, 95%CI (–178.63, –24.73), P<0.001] were significantly shorter in PAR than those in TAR; (3) there was no statistical difference in mortality after discharge, rate of over 5-year survival, renal failure after surgery and re-intervention, volume of red blood cells transfusion and fresh-frozen plasma transfusion, or hospital stay between two surgical procedures. Conclusion     Compared with TAR, PAR has a shorter operation time and lower early and in-hospital mortality, but there is no difference in long-term outcomes or complications between the two procedures for patients with ATAAD.

Impact of redo sternotomy on proximal aortic repair: Does previous aortic repair affect outcomes?

PURPOSE: Proximal aortic repair (AoR) in the setting of previous sternotomy may be associated with greater risk than primary repair. Our objective was to determine whether redo sternotomy increases the risk of adverse outcomes following proximal aortic surgery. METHODS: We reviewed all proximal AoRs from 1991 to 2014. Outcomes were compared between first-time AoR (non-redo = 1305) and redo AoRs, which were further classified into 3 categories: (1) previous acute type A aortic dissection (AAD) repair (redo-AAD = 146, 8.3%); (2) previous proximal aneurysm repair (redo-aneurysm = 165, 9.4%); and (3) previous cardiac (non-aortic) sternotomy (redo-cardiac = 145, 8.2%). Data were analyzed by contingency tables and multiple regression. RESULTS: In total, 456 of 1761 (25.9%) proximal AoRs had redo sternotomy. Aortic redos (redo-AAD and redo-cardiac) had significantly more connective tissue disorders (P < .001). On presentation, AAD was least common in aortic redos followed by cardiac redos (redo-cardiac) versus non-redos (5% vs 28% vs 31%, P < .001). At reoperation, 190 underwent ascending + hemiarch (21% redo-AAD, 50% redo-aneurysm, 53% redo-cardiac), 140 total arch (64% redo-AAD, 15% redo-aneurysm, 15% redo-cardiac), 110 elephant trunk (52% redo-AAD, 12% redo-aneurysm, 11% redo-cardiac), 159 AVR (36% redo-AAD, 42% redo-aneurysm, 25% redo-cardiac), and 100 aortic root (34% redo-AAD, 22% redo-aneurysm, 10% redo-cardiac). Except for pulmonary, redo sternotomy did not increase risk of postoperative complications. Thirty-day mortality after redo sternotomy was 14%-the greatest among cardiac redos. Over a median follow-up of 13 years, non-redos had significantly greater long-term survival (P < .001). Coronary artery disease was a significant predictor of mortality (P < .001). After adjustment for coronary artery disease, cardiac redos had the greatest long-term mortality risk (hazard ratio, 1.43, P < .005). Previous AoR did not significantly add risk above redo sternotomy alone (P = .734). CONCLUSIONS: Redo sternotomy is associated with increased risk for short- and long-term mortality after proximal aortic repair. Despite need for extensive repair, previous proximal aortic (for aneurysm or AAD) repair did not add further risk above that attributable to redo sternotomy.

Proximal aortic repair versus extensive aortic repair in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal surgical strategy for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is still controversial because of the inconsistent or even conflicting results of proximal aortic repair (PR) versus extensive aortic repair (ER) on early and late prognostic outcomes. This meta-analysis pooled data from all available studies of PR versus ER to get a summarized conclusion. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching the Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Early and late prognostic outcomes of interest were evaluated with meta-analysis. Fixed- or random-effect models were used according to the significance of heterogeneity. Robustness of pooled estimates and the source of heterogeneity were assessed via sensitivity analyses and meta-regression, respectively. Publication bias was evaluated by the funnel plot and Egger's test. RESULTS: Nine studies with a total of 1872 patients were included for the meta-analysis. Pooled results indicated that, when compared with the ER procedure, PR was associated with lower early mortality [risk ratio (RR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.90, P = 0.005] but higher incidence of postoperative aortic events including reoperation of the distal aorta (RR = 3.14, 95% CI 1.74-5.67, P < 0.001). PR and ER demonstrated analogous prognosis on long-term mortality (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.51-2.06, P = 0.96) and the incidences of early postoperative renal failure (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.49-1.14, P = 0.17) and stroke (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.30-1.78, P = 0.50). All the pooled results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity was insignificant except for the meta-analysis of late mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Performing a less aggressive initial surgical procedure of PR in ATAAD patients would have lower early mortality but elevated incidence rates of late aortic reintervention, when compared with ER. Other prognostic results of the two surgical strategies including long-term mortality were similar for both.