4.6 Article

Reoperation After Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair: A Series of 104 Patients

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 95, Issue 3, Pages 922-928

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.11.029

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Our objective was to analyze the causes, timing, and results of reoperation after primary repair for acute type A dissection. Methods. One hundred and four consecutive patients underwent a reoperation after previous type A aortic dissection repair (1972 to 2008). Supracoronary ascending aorta replacement (SCAR) was commonly performed during primary repair and it was associated with aortic root replacement in 13 cases and with hemiarch replacement in 26 patients. Progression of aortic dilatation was seen in 91 patients (87%), aortic regurgitation in 21 (20%), and false aneurysm in 15 patients (14%). A redo Bentall procedure was performed in 34 cases, arch replacement in 42 patients, and thoracoabdominal aorta replacement in 20 patients. The median follow-up was 6.5 years (range 0.3 to 23.8 years). Results. The in-hospital mortality after redo surgery was 7.7%. The global survival rate at 1, 5, and 10 years was 92%, 82%, and 58%, respectively. Proximal reoperations were more frequent in patients who had SCAR and flap extension into the aortic root. Patients with an unresected intimal tear and distal extension of dissection flap experienced a higher rate of aortic arch and thoracoabdominal aorta redo procedures. Conclusions. More extensive acute dissection repair results in a lower rate of reoperation. Mortality for redo surgery after type A acute dissection repair is acceptable. This finding should be taken into account in proposing a widespread of more complex and extensive surgery for type A acute dissection. (Ann Thorac Surg 2013;95:922-8) (C) 2013 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available