4.6 Article

Low rate of reoperations after acute type A aortic dissection repair from The Nordic Consortium Registry

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.03.144

关键词

aortic dissection; reoperation; midterm; outcome

资金

  1. Finnish governmental research funding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To describe the relationship between the extent of primary aortic repair and the incidence of reoperations after surgery for type A aortic dissection. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 1159 patients treated for type A aortic dissection at eight Nordic low-to medium-sized cardiothoracic centers from 2005 to 2014. Data were gathered from patient records and national registries. Patients were separately divided into 3 groups according to the distal anastomoses technique (ascending aorta [n = 791], hemiarch [n = 247], and total arch [n = 66]), and into 2 groups for proximal repair (aortic root replacement [n = 285] and supracoronary repair [n = 832]). Freedom from reoperation was estimated with cumulative incidence survival and Fine-Gray competing risk regression model was used to identify independent risk factors for reoperation. Results: The median follow-up was 2.7 years (range, 0-10 years). Altogether 51 out of 911 patients underwent reoperation. Freedom from distal reoperation at 5 years was 96.9%, with no significant difference between the groups (P = .22). Freedom from proximal reoperation at 5 years was 97.8%, with no difference between the groups (P = .84). Neither DeBakey classification nor the extent of proximal or distal repair predicted freedom from a later reoperation. The only independent risk factor associated with a later proximal reoperation was a history of connective tissue disease. Conclusions: Type A aortic dissection repair in low-to medium-volume centers was associated with a low reoperation rate and satisfactory midterm survival. The extent of the primary repair had no significant influence on reoperation rate or midterm survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据