Operative strategy for Stanford type A aortic dissection: total arch versus hemi-arch replacement
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-4497.2014.06.005
- VernacularTitle:主动脉全弓、右半弓替换治疗Stanford A型主动脉夹层的效果比较
- Author:
Shengchen LIU
;
Fuhua HUANG
;
Wei QIN
;
Xin CHEN
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Aorta;
Aneurysm,dissection;
Total arch replacement;
Hemi-arch replacement;
Prognosis;
Follow-up
- From:
Chinese Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2014;30(6):331-334
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective This report is to compare the difference outcome between total arch replacement and hemi-arch replacement for Stanford type A aortic dissection.Methods The subjects were 208 consecutive patients,including 121 who received total arch replacement(group A) and 87 who had hemi-arch replacement(group B) for Stanford type A aortic dissection from August 2001 to July 2013 in Nanjing Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University.The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time,average cross-clamping time,selective cerebral perfusion(SCP) time,complications,in-hospital mortality and follow-up after surgery were retrospectively compared between the A and B groups.Results The age,sex ratio,preoperative complications do not show a significant difference between the A and B groups.The CPB time [(247.68± 58.65) min vs (212.68±60.75) min,P =0.000],cross-clamping time[(154.85±45.96) min vs(137.83± 38.91) min,P =0.000] and SCP time [(36.98± 10.62) min vs(29.85± 13.46) min,P =0.000] of group A are all longer than group B.The incidence of postoperative complications(14.0％ vs 10.3％,P =0.619) and in-hospital mortality(9.1％ vs 8.0％,P =0.791) between the A and B groups do not have a significant difference.The mean time of follow-up differed significantly between two groups [(21.86± 18.89) months vs(61.23± 38.57) months,P =0.000] and did not differ in the rate of follow-up(94.5％ vs 96.3％,P =0.585).The rate of false lumen thrombosed at the proximal descending aorta showed a significant difference between the twogroups(91.8％ vs 23.8％,P =0.000),but the rate of secondary surgical intervention (0 vs 2.3 ％,P =0.095) and follow-up death (6.4％ vs 6.3 ％,P =0.975) do not.Conclusion For the Stanford type A aortic dissection patients,surgery is the only treatment that can save lives.Total arch replacement need more time in CPB,cross-clamping and SCP,but the complications,in-hospital mortality and follow-up death do not show a significant difference compared with hemi-arch replacement,and higher rate of false lumen thrombosed have been showed in total arch replacement.
