Background:
The goal of this study was 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, aortic valve replacement (AVR), and a root replacement procedure.
Methods:
All patients who underwent acute Type A aortic dissection repair between January 2000 and October 2010 at four academic institutions were compiled from each institution’s Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. This included 189 patients who underwent a concomitant aortic valve (AV) procedure; 111, 21, and 57 patients underwent AV resuspension, AVR, and the Bentall procedure, respectively. The median age of patients undergoing a root replacement procedure was significantly younger than the other two groups. Early clinical outcomes and 10-year actuarial survival rates were compared. Trends in outcomes and surgical techniques throughout the duration of the study were also analyzed.
Results:
The operative mortality rates were 17%, 29%, and 18%, for AV resuspension, AVR, and root replacement, respectively. Operative mortality (p = 0.459) was comparable between groups. Hemorrhage related re-exploration did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.182); however, root replacement procedures tended to have decreased rates of bleeding when compared to AVR (p = 0.067). The 10-year actuarial survival rates for the AV resuspension, Bentall, and AVR groups were 72%, 56%, and 36%, respectively (log-rank p = 0.035).
Conclusions:
The 10-year actuarial survival was significantly lower in those receiving AVR compared to those receiving root replacement procedures or AV resuspension. Operative mortality was comparable between the three groups.
Optimizing Outcome in Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection- A 10 Year Analysis Focusing on Surgical Techniques and Neurological Outcome