Surgical outcomes analysis in patients with uncomplicated acute type A aortic dissection: a 13-year institutional experience

6Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This retrospective study aimed to clarify the short-term and mid-term outcomes of and prognostic factors for patients who underwent surgical repair for uncomplicated acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). Between January 2007 and June 2019, 603 consecutive patients underwent ATAAD repair at our institution. According to patients’ preoperative presentations and imaging studies, uncomplicated ATAAD was found in 276 (45.8%) patients by excluding preoperative complicated factors. Patients with uncomplicated ATAAD were classified into the survivor (n = 243) and non-survivor (n = 33) groups. Clinical features, surgical information, and postoperative complications were compared. Three-year survival and freedom from reoperation rates for survivors were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier actuarial method. The in-hospital surgical mortality rate of uncomplicated ATAAD patients was 11.9%. The non-survivor group had a higher rate of postoperative malperfusion-related complications, and a multivariate analysis revealed that repeat surgery, retrograde cerebral perfusion, and intraoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support were predictors of in-hospital mortality. In the survivor group, 3-year cumulative survival and freedom from aortic reoperation rates were 89.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84.8–92.9%) and 83.1% (95% CI 76.8–87.7%), respectively. In conclusion, uncomplicated and complicated ATAAD rates were similar; the short-term and mid-term surgical outcomes in patients with uncomplicated ATAAD were generally acceptable.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lin, C. Y., See, L. C., Tseng, C. N., Wu, M. Y., Han, Y., Lu, C. H., & Tsai, F. C. (2020). Surgical outcomes analysis in patients with uncomplicated acute type A aortic dissection: a 13-year institutional experience. Scientific Reports, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71961-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free