Aortic root management in acute type A aortic dissection: A nationwide analysis. Issue 10 (23rd July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Percy, Edward D.; Harloff, Morgan T.; Newell, Paige C.; Chowdhury, Muntasir; Singh, Supreet; Hirji, Sameer A.; Yazdchi, Farhang; Vinholo, Thais F.; Kerolos, Mariam; Kaneko, Tsuyoshi; Sabe, Ashraf A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiac surgery. Volume 37:Issue 10(2022)
• Page Start: 3050
• Page End: 3056
• Publication Date: 2022-07-23
• Subjects: aorta and great vessels -- valve repair/replacement; Heart -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.412005
• DOI: 10.1111/jocs.16717
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0886-0440

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a life‐threatening condition and surgical repair often includes aortic valve replacement (AVR). Aortic valve repair (AVr) is increasingly being reported with favorable outcomes from single‐center experiences. This study examined national trends and outcomes of AVr in patients with ATAAD. Methods: Adults with a primary diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection who underwent proximal aortic surgery from January 2016 to December 2017 were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were stratified into an isolated aortic surgery group (no aortic valve procedure), concomitant AVR, or concomitant AVr groups. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included stroke, acute kidney injury, heart block, and bleeding. Propensity score matching was used to address patient and hospital‐level confounders between AVR and AVr groups. Results: In total, 5115 patients underwent surgery for ATAAD and were included. Overall, 3220 (63%) underwent isolated ATAAD repair, while 1120 (22%) had concomitant AVR, and 775 (15%) had concomitant AVr. In 455 propensity‐matched pairs, there was no difference in mortality or stroke between AVr and AVR groups, however, heart block (1.1% vs. 7.5%, p < .001) and bleeding (65.9% vs. 81.3%, p < .001) were significantly less common among those who underwent AVr. Patients who underwent AVr had shortest LOS (11.9 vs. 13.5 days, p < .001). There were no differences in outcomes of AVr in ATAAD based on hospital size or teaching status. Conclusion: In selected patients, AVr is being performed safely in the setting of ATAAD with mortality and composite outcomes comparable to AVR.