RESUMO
Background: Aortic dissection is still afflicted with significant morbidity and mortality. This research seeks to assess long-term outcomes and quality of life after emergency surgery for acute aortic dissection type A. Methods: A total of 413 patients were analysed, who had been operated upon between 2000 and 2016 at our centre. We compared our results of the early (2000-2007) versus late (2008-2016) period with regards to 30-day and follow-up mortality and need for reoperation, including risk factor analysis. Quality of life was assessed via the SF-36 survey. Results: Calculated perioperative risk by EuroSCORE increased significantly from early, 24.9%, to late, 38.0%, p < 0.001. Thirty-day rates of mortality decreased significantly from 26.7% to 17.4%, p = 0.03. Survival at 1-, 5-, and 10-years was 92.3% vs. 91.8% (p = 0.91), 75.2% vs. 81.0% (p = 0.29), and 53.4% vs. 69.7% (p = 0.04). Freedom from reoperation was comparable between groups at follow-up: 74.0% vs. 85.7%, p = 0.28. Quality of life was impaired. Conclusions: Despite more complex severity of disease and operative procedures, the results of surgery for type A aortic dissection improved significantly over time at 30-day and 10-year follow-up. Quality of life was significantly impaired compared to a healthy reference population.
RESUMO
Objective: The extent of surgery and the role of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) for surgical repair of acute aortic dissection type I are still subjects of debate. The aim of the study is to evaluate the short- and long-term results of acute surgical repair of aortic dissection type I using the FET compared to standard proximal aortic repair. Methods: Between October 2009 and December 2016, 172 patients underwent emergent surgery for acute type I aortic dissection at our center. Of these, n = 72 received a FET procedure, while the other 100 patients received a conventional proximal aortic repair. Results were compared between the two surgery groups. The primary endpoints included 30-day rates of mortality and neurologic deficit and follow-up rates of mortality and aortic-related reintervention. Results: Demographic data were comparable between the groups, except for a higher proportion of men in the FET group (76.4% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.03). The median age was 62 years [IQR (20), p = 0.17], and the median log EuroSCORE was 38.6% [IQR (31.4), p = 0.21]. The mean follow-up time was 68.3 ± 33.8 months. Neither early (FET group 15.3% vs. proximal group 23.0%, p = 0.25) nor late (FET group 26.2% vs. proximal group 23.0%, p = 0.69) mortality showed significant differences between the groups. There were fewer strokes in the FET patients (FET group 2.8% vs. proximal group 11.0%, p = 0.04), and the rates of spinal cord injury were similar between the groups (FET group 4.2% vs. proximal group 2.0%, p = 0.41). Aortic-related reintervention rates did not differ between the groups (FET group 12.1% vs. proximal group 9.8%, p = 0.77). Conclusion: Emergent FET repair for acute aortic dissection type I is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. The benefits of the FET procedure in the long term remain unclear. Prolonged follow-up data are needed.