RESUMO
Objective: The extent of surgery and the role of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) for surgical repair of acute aortic dissection type I are still subjects of debate. The aim of the study is to evaluate the short- and long-term results of acute surgical repair of aortic dissection type I using the FET compared to standard proximal aortic repair. Methods: Between October 2009 and December 2016, 172 patients underwent emergent surgery for acute type I aortic dissection at our center. Of these, n = 72 received a FET procedure, while the other 100 patients received a conventional proximal aortic repair. Results were compared between the two surgery groups. The primary endpoints included 30-day rates of mortality and neurologic deficit and follow-up rates of mortality and aortic-related reintervention. Results: Demographic data were comparable between the groups, except for a higher proportion of men in the FET group (76.4% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.03). The median age was 62 years [IQR (20), p = 0.17], and the median log EuroSCORE was 38.6% [IQR (31.4), p = 0.21]. The mean follow-up time was 68.3 ± 33.8 months. Neither early (FET group 15.3% vs. proximal group 23.0%, p = 0.25) nor late (FET group 26.2% vs. proximal group 23.0%, p = 0.69) mortality showed significant differences between the groups. There were fewer strokes in the FET patients (FET group 2.8% vs. proximal group 11.0%, p = 0.04), and the rates of spinal cord injury were similar between the groups (FET group 4.2% vs. proximal group 2.0%, p = 0.41). Aortic-related reintervention rates did not differ between the groups (FET group 12.1% vs. proximal group 9.8%, p = 0.77). Conclusion: Emergent FET repair for acute aortic dissection type I is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. The benefits of the FET procedure in the long term remain unclear. Prolonged follow-up data are needed.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Surgery of acute aortic dissection using the frozen elephant trunk (FET) can be complicated when the origin of the left subclavian artery (LSA) is dissected and sacrifice by ligation is a viable option. However, the LSA is supposed to play a role in neuroprotection as a major collateral. We, therefore, analyzed our results of LSA sacrifice in this cohort. METHODS: We identified a total of 84 patients from our prospectively collected database who underwent FET repair of acute aortic dissection between October 2009 and April 2018. LSA was sacrificed in 19 patients (22.6%). Results were analyzed and compared with regard to neurological outcomes. RESULTS: New postoperative stroke was seen in two patients (2.4%) and spinal cord injury in three patients (3.6%) overall, none in the LSA-sacrifice group. We observed a temporary neurological deficit in five patients (6.0%) overall, none in the LSA-sacrifice group. None of the patients developed acute ischemia of the left arm. Only two patients (12.5%) came back for carotid-subclavian artery bypass due to exertion-induced weakness of the left arm 3 to 4 months after the initial surgery. In-hospital mortality was 15.5% overall, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSION: LSA sacrifice was not associated with elevated postoperative risk of either central or spinal neurological injury. Thus, it can facilitate FET repair of acute aortic dissection in selected cases when the left subclavian origin cannot be preserved. Carotid-subclavian artery bypass became necessary in only a small fraction of these patients and can be performed as a second-stage procedure.