4.2 Article

Analysis of early and long-term outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection according to the new international aortic arch surgery study group recommendations

期刊

HEART AND VESSELS
卷 31, 期 10, 页码 1616-1624

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00380-015-0770-1

关键词

Aortic dissection; Aortic arch; Cerebral protection; Aortic operation; Outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate predictors of early and long-term outcomes of surgical repair of acute Type A aortic dissection. Retrospective single-centre study evaluating patients surgically treated between 1998 and 2013. Clinical follow-up was performed. Complications were classified according to the International Aortic Arch Surgery Study Group recommendations. Statistical analysis included univariate and multivariate analysis of preoperative and operative data. One hundred eighty-five patients were evaluated. The follow-up was complete for 180 patients (97 %). Mean age was 63 years, 82 % had a DeBakey type I aortic dissection, 18 % a type II. Eleven patients (6 %) died intraoperatively, 119 of the remaining (68 %) had postoperative complications. Thirty-day mortality was 21 % (38 patients). Average ICU and hospital stay were 6 and 14 days, respectively. During a mean follow-up time of 6 +/- 4 years we observed 44 deaths (31 %). Twenty patients (14 %) needed late thoracic aorta reoperation. Results from the multivariate analysis are as follows. Thirty-day mortality was associated with abdominal pain at presentation (p < 0.01). The incidence of postoperative complications was related to older age at intervention (p < 0.01) and longer cross-clamp time (p < 0.01). Mortality at follow-up was significantly increased by older age at intervention (p < 0.01), with a logarithmic growth after 60 years, female sex (p < 0.01), preoperative limb ischemia (p = 0.02) and DHCA (p < 0.01). The surgical results of type A aortic dissection are affected by age at intervention with a logarithmic increase of late mortality in patients older than 60 years.

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

4.2
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