Three techniques of proximal root reconstruction and long term outcomes following repair of acute type A aortic dissection
10.7507/1007-4848.201801041
- VernacularTitle:急性主动脉 A 型夹层主动脉根部处理技术的近远期效果分析
- Author:
QIU Juntao
1
;
YU Cuntao
1
;
LUO Xinjin
1
;
LIU Shen
2
;
JIANG Wenxiang
1
;
WU Jinlin
1
;
ZHANG Liang
3
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100037, P.R.China
2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, 102206, P.R.China
3. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Heart, Lung and Blood Vessel Diseases, Beijing, 100029, P.R.China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Aortic dissection;
aortic root;
aortic valve;
mortality
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2018;25(11):949-955
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the early and late outcomes of different techniques of proximal root reconstruction during the repair of acute type A aortic dissection, including aortic valve (AV) resuspension, isolated supracoronary ascending aorta replacement, and aortic root replacement procedure (Bentall). Methods All patients who underwent acute Type A aortic dissection repair between January 2010 and December 2015 in Fuwai Hospital were retrospectively analyzed in our study. There were 673 patients with 512 males and 161 females at mean age of 48.80±11.22 years. There were 403 patients as an AV resuspension group (287 males and 116 females at average age of 50.61±9.95 years), 95 patients as an isolated supracoronary ascending aorta replacement group (76 males and 19 females at average of 49.83±12.21 years), and 175 patients as an AV resuspension group (149 males and 26 females at average of 44.07±11.99 years). The differences of preoperative aortic insufficiency, intraoperative variables and postoperative aortic insufficiency were compared in the three groups. Results Five hundred ninety-one patients (87.8%) had aortic valve commissure involved. The proportion of mild degree, moderate degree, and severe degree among the three groups were statistically significant (31.7%, 52.4%, 15.9%; 87.4%, 12.6%, 0.0%; 23.4%, 56.0%, 20.6%; P < 0.01). The diameter of aortic sinus in the three groups was 39.06±5.11 mm, 38.27±4.41 mm, 50.39±6.22 mm, respectively, with a statistical difference ( P< 0.01). The duration of surgery, cardiopulmonary bypass time, aorta cross-clamp time were also statistically significant (P < 0.01). The in-hospital mortality was 11.73% in the whole group. There was no difference among the three groups (12.2% vs. 13.7% vs. 9.7%, P=0.58). Five-year survival rate was similar (83.06% vs. 81.27% vs. 83.05%, P=0.85). The 5-year free from over moderate aortic insufficiency rate were 95.2%, 98.6% and 100% respectively, with no statistical difference (P=0.07). There was no re-do operation for aortic root diseases in the whole group. Conclusion According to aortic root processing strategy in our center, AV resuspension, isolated supracoronary ascending aorta replacement, and aortic root replacement can achieve satisfactory results. However, there is higher incidence of aortic insufficiency through AV resuspension. Further study is needed to evaluate its efficacy.
