Search

The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of nonsurgically managed acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) in the contemporary era.From January 1996 to December 2021, 999 patients presented with ATAAD at our institution, of whom 839 patients underwent open aortic repair (surgical cohort) whereas 148 patients were managed nonoperatively (nonsurgical cohort) because of severe comorbidities, organ failure from malperfusion syndrome, and patients' wishes. Data were obtained from chart review, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons warehouse, the national death index, and Michigan death index database.The combined in-hospital + 30-day mortality rate was 9 times higher in the nonsurgical cohort compared with the surgical cohort (70% vs 7.9%). In the nonsurgical cohort, compared with the first decade (1996-2010), patients during the second decade (2011-2021) had a lower in-hospital+30-day mortality rate (58% vs 87%; P.001); lower incidence of aortic rupture (8% vs 21%; P=.008), and a higher 3-year survival rate (29% vs 13%; P=.005). Within the nonsurgical cohort, compared with patients without malperfusion syndrome, the patients with malperfusion syndrome had similar in-hospital + 30-day mortality but a greater incidence of aortic rupture (21% vs 6.1%, P=.01) with an odds ratio of 4.2 (P=.03); compared with classic type A dissection, the patients with intramural hematoma had a lower in-hospital+30-day mortality rate (52% vs 72%, P=.02) with an odds ratio of 0.36 (P=.02).Surgery remained the mainstream treatment for ATAAD. Nonsurgical management still had a role for those who were not surgical candidates because of comorbidities or malperfusion syndrome, especially in those with acute type A intramural hematoma.

There is debate regarding aortic arch repair extent for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients.From 1996 to 2021, 756 ATAAD patients underwent open arch replacement. The cohort was divided into hemiarch (n = 481), zone 1 (n = 65), zone 2 (n = 148), and zone 3 (n = 62) arch replacement groups. Cross-group comparison of aortic growth was modeled using data from interval postoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the distal aorta.Demographics were not significantly different except the hemiarch group had more coronary artery disease and less stroke. Intraoperatively, zones 1, 2, and 3 had greater cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermic circulatory arrest times and required more intraoperative blood transfusion than the hemiarch group. Perioperative outcomes were similar among groups except zone 3 had more reoperation for bleeding. Ten-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was hemiarch, 16.7%; zone 1, 16.3%; zone 2, 21.5%; and zone 3, 17.6% (P = .70). Ten-year survival was similar: hemiarch, 66%; zone 1, 60.3%; zone 2, 68.0%); and zone 3 66.1% (P = .20). Aortic arch, descending aorta, and abdominal aorta growth rates were not significantly different among groups over 10 years. In the whole cohort, the growth rate over time for aortic arch was 0.38 mm per year (P.001), descending aorta 0.84 mm per year (P.001), and abdominal aorta 0.69 mm per year (P.001).There was no significant difference in long-term survival, distal aorta growth, or reoperation rate for distal aortic aneurysm after hemiarch or zones 1, 2, or 3 arch replacement. Patient-specific arch replacement strategies may be used rather than defaulting to aggressive arch replacement for all ATAAD patients.