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 Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:  Although, in theory, valve-sparing aortic root replacement ( David procedure ) is an ideal surgical option for acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) it is usually not regarded as the first-choice treatment due to the emergency setting and the relative complexity of the procedure. Here, we report the results of a consecutive, single-surgeon series of 45 AADA patients with the  David procedure  as first-choice treatment strategy.   Methods and Results:  Between September 2009 and July 2013 a total of 49 patients with AADA were consecutively operated by the same surgeon at our institution. The  David procedure  was the treatment of choice for the proximal aorta unless aortic valve pathology or critical preoperative patient status advocated against it. Median follow-up was 5.0 years (CI95%, 4.0–6.0). Out of the 45 patients included in this study the  David procedure  was performed in 28 patients (62.2%), while in 17 patients (37.8%) an alternative surgical strategy had to be pursued. Although X-clamping (168.5 ± 41.7 vs. 110.3 ± 51.1 min;  p  = 0.001), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (245.0 ± 62.4 vs. 211.8 ± 123 min;  p  = 0.029) and total operation time (383.8 ± 88.5 vs. 312.8 ± 144.8;  p  = 0.047) were significantly longer in the David-group as compared to the non-David group, there was no difference in major complication rate as well as 30-day (17.9 vs. 23.5%;  p  = 0.645) and 5-year mortality (28.6 vs. 35.3%) between groups.   Conclusions:  This small series indicates that the  David procedure  may be safe and feasible as a primary surgical treatment strategy for AADA.

Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement as First-Choice Strategy in Acute Type a Aortic Dissection