English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  This single center study compares the different surgical techniques used in the treatment of acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) analyzing the influence of the extent of the surgical approach on outcome.    Methods  From 1988 to 2012, 407 patients were operated for AADA. The cohort was divided into subgroups according to the surgical approach. These groups were compared with the supracommissural replacement group (SCR;  n  = 141). Groups included aortic valve sparing techniques (AVS;  n  = 29), Composite replacement (COMP;  n  = 119), COMP with total arch replacement (COMP+TAR;  n  = 27) and SCR with TAR ( n  = 75).    Results  Compared to SCR alone, operation ( p  = 0.005), bypass-, cross-clamp and circulatory arrest times were longer in SCR + TAR (all  p  < 0.001). Moreover, operation, bypass and cross clamp times were longer in COMP+TAR ( p  = 0.003,  p  = 0.002 and  p  < 0.001 respectively). COMP alone and AVS required longer cross-clamp time, too ( p  < 0,001 and  p  = 0.002, respectively). Overall 30-day mortality was 21% with the observed lowest rate after AVS (14%, SCR 18%, COMP 25%) but differences in 30-day mortality were not statistically significant. The estimated 10-year survival was 42%, especially AVS demonstrated a good 10-year survival (69%). David technique was superior to Yacoub technique concerning incidence of redo interventions ( p  = 0.036). Risk factors for early mortality included age, circulatory arrest, general malperfusion, bypass and operation time. Circulatory arrest per se was revealed as risk factor for long-term survival.    Conclusions  Within our single center retrospective study concomitant aortic root repair or aortic arch replacement for AADA demonstrated acceptable early and long-term survival. Circulatory arrest, long bypass and operation times per se might be important risk factors for early mortality. AVS techniques can be performed safely and have good outcomes in acute aortic dissection repair.

Extensive aortic surgery in acute aortic dissection type A on outcome – insights from 25 years single center experience