Should we operate on patients with acute type A aortic dissection who present with cardiopulmonary resuscitation?

OBJECTIVES: Acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) is a life-threatening medical emergency. Emergent surgical repair is the gold standard but mortality remains high. Mortality is even higher in patients who arrive at the hospital in poor condition, especially after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This study was designed to analyse the outcome of patients who underwent surgery for AADA and who require preoperative CPR. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2023, 810 patients underwent emergent surgery for AADA at our centre. Of these, 63 had preoperative CPR. We performed a retrospective analysis with follow-up. RESULTS: Mean age was 64 ± 13 years and 37 (59%) patients were male. Further, 50 (79%) patients had preoperative intubation, and 54 (86%) had pericardial effusion. Twenty-four (38%) patients had out-of-hospital CPR, 19 (30%) required CPR in hospital and 20 (32%) needed CPR in the operating room. Successful CPR with return of spontaneous circulation was achieved in 41 (65%) patients, and 22 (35%) underwent emergent surgery under ongoing CPR. The median time of CPR was 10 (interquartile range 12) min, and the median time from onset of symptoms to start of the operation was 5.5 (interquartile range 4.8) h. The majority of patients underwent ascending aortic replacement with hemiarch repair (n = 37, 59%). Further, 26 (41%) patients underwent full root replacement. Another 15 (24%) patients underwent total arch repair with or without (frozen) elephant trunk repair. Postoperative stroke was present in 8 (13%) patients. The 30-day mortality was 29 (46%). The 30-day mortality of patients with preoperative intubation was not significantly higher (n = 15/28, 54%, P = 0.446). The 1-, 5- and 10-year survival rates of the entire group were 42, 39 and 36%. CONCLUSIONS: Early mortality for patients undergoing surgery for AADA with preoperative CPR is extremely high (almost 50%). However, this means that also ∼50% of patients benefit from surgery despite poor preoperative prognosis. Patients with preoperative intubation after CPR and unknown neurological condition should also undergo surgery. Patients who survive the initial operation for AADA have acceptable long-term survival. Emergent surgery should be offered for all patients with AADA regardless of the preoperative condition, even after CPR.

Preprocedural Computed Tomography Planning for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Selection of transcatheter valve size using preprocedural computed tomography (CT) is standardized and well established. However, valve sizing for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is currently performed intraoperatively by using sizers, which may result in variation among operators and risk for prosthesis-patient mismatch. This study evaluated the usefulness of CT annulus measurement for SAVR valve sizing. METHODS: This study included patients who underwent SAVR using Inspiris or Magna Ease and received preoperative electrocardiogram-gated CT imaging. Starting from June 2022, study investigators applied a CT sizing algorithm using CT-derived annulus size to guide minimum SAVR label size. The final decision of valve selection was left to the operating surgeon during SAVR. The study compared the appropriateness of valve selection (comparing implanted size with CT-predicted size) and prosthesis-patient mismatch rates without aortic root enlargement between 2 cohorts: 102 cases since June 2022 (CT sizing cohort) and 180 cases from 2020 to 2021 (conventional sizing cohort). RESULTS: Implanted size smaller than CT predicted size and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch were significantly lower by CT sizing than by conventional sizing (12% vs 31% [P = .001] and 0% vs 6% [P = .039], respectively). Interoperator variability was a factor associated with implanted size smaller than CT predicted with conventional sizing, whereas it became nonsignificant with CT sizing. CONCLUSIONS: Applying CT sizing to SAVR led to improved valve size selection, less prosthesis-patient mismatch, and less interoperator variability. CT sizing for SAVR could also be used to predict prosthesis-patient mismatch before SAVR and identify patients who need aortic root enlargement.

Acute Aortic Dissection Type A in Younger Patients (< 60 Years Old) - Does Full Arch Replacement Provide Benefits Compared to Limited Approach?

ABSTRACT Introduction: Acute aortic dissection Stanford type A (AADA) is a surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. Although surgical management has improved, the optimal therapy is a matter of debate. Different surgical strategies have been proposed for patients under 60 years old. This paper evaluates the postoperative outcome and the need for secondary aortic operation after a limited surgical approach (proximal arch replacement) vs. extended arch repair. Methods: Between January 2000 and January 2018, 530 patients received surgical treatment for AADA at our hospital; 182 were under 60 years old and were enrolled in this study - Group A (n=68), limited arch repair (proximal arch replacement), and group B (n=114), extended arch repair (> proximal arch replacement). Results: More pericardial tamponade (P=0.005) and preoperative mechanical resuscitation (P=0.014) were seen in Group A. More need for renal replacement therapy (P=0.047) was seen in the full arch group. Mechanical ventilation time (P=0.022) and intensive care unit stay (P<0.001) were shorter in the limited repair group. Thirty-day mortality was comparable (P=0.117). New onset of postoperative stroke was comparable (Group A four patients [5.9%] vs. Group B 15 patients [13.2%]; P=0.120). Long-term follow-up did not differ significantly for secondary aortic surgery. Conclusion: Even though young patients received only limited arch repair, the outcome was comparable. Full-arch replacement was not beneficial in the long-time follow-up. A limited approach is justified in the cohort of young AADA patients. Exemptions, like known Marfan syndrome and the presence of an intimal tear in the arch, should be considered.

Acute Aortic Dissection Type A in Younger Patients (< 60 Years Old) - Does Full Arch Replacement Provide Benefits Compared to Limited Approach?

INTRODUCTION: Acute aortic dissection Stanford type A (AADA) is a surgical emergency associated with high morbidity and mortality. Although surgical management has improved, the optimal therapy is a matter of debate. Different surgical strategies have been proposed for patients under 60 years old. This paper evaluates the postoperative outcome and the need for secondary aortic operation after a limited surgical approach (proximal arch replacement) vs. extended arch repair. METHODS: Between January 2000 and January 2018, 530 patients received surgical treatment for AADA at our hospital; 182 were under 60 years old and were enrolled in this study - Group A (n=68), limited arch repair (proximal arch replacement), and group B (n=114), extended arch repair (> proximal arch replacement). RESULTS: More pericardial tamponade (P=0.005) and preoperative mechanical resuscitation (P=0.014) were seen in Group A. More need for renal replacement therapy (P=0.047) was seen in the full arch group. Mechanical ventilation time (P=0.022) and intensive care unit stay (P<0.001) were shorter in the limited repair group. Thirty-day mortality was comparable (P=0.117). New onset of postoperative stroke was comparable (Group A four patients [5.9%] vs. Group B 15 patients [13.2%]; P=0.120). Long-term follow-up did not differ significantly for secondary aortic surgery. CONCLUSION: Even though young patients received only limited arch repair, the outcome was comparable. Full-arch replacement was not beneficial in the long-time follow-up. A limited approach is justified in the cohort of young AADA patients. Exemptions, like known Marfan syndrome and the presence of an intimal tear in the arch, should be considered.

Onset of pain to surgery time in acute aortic dissections type A: a mandatory factor for evaluating surgical results?

Objective: An acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) is a rare but life-threatening event. The mortality rate ranges between 18% to 28% and mortality is often within the first 24 h and up to 1%-2% per hour. Although the onset of pain to surgery time has not been a relevant factor in terms of research in the field of AADA, we hypothesize that a patient's preoperative conditions depend on the length of this time. Methods: Between January 2000 and January 2018, 430 patients received surgical treatment for acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I at our tertiary referral hospital. In 11 patients, the exact time point of initial onset of pain was retrospectively not detectable. Accordingly, a total of 419 patients were included in the study. The cohort was categorized into two groups: Group A with an onset of pain to surgery time < 6 h (n = 211) and Group B > 6 h (n = 208), respectively. Results: Median age was 63.5 years (y) ((IQR: 53.3-71.4 y); (67.5% male)). Preoperative conditions differed significantly between the cohorts. Differences were detected in terms of malperfusion (A: 39.3%; B: 23.6%; P: 0.001), neurological symptoms (A: 24.2%; B: 15.4%; P: 0.024), and the dissection of supra-aortic arteries (A: 25.1%; B: 16.8%; P: 0.037). In particular, cerebral malperfusion (A 15.2%: B: 8.2%; P: 0.026) and limb malperfusion (A: 18%, B: 10.1%; P: 0.020) were significantly increased in Group A. Furthermore, Group A showed a decreased median survival time (A: 1,359.0 d; B: 2,247.5 d; P: 0.001), extended ventilation time (A: 53.0 h; B: 44.0 h; P: 0.249) and higher 30-day mortality rate (A: 25.1%; B: 17.3%; P: 0.051). Conclusions: Patients with a short onset of pain to surgery time in cases of AADA present themselves not only with more severe preoperative symptoms but are also the more compromised cohort. Despite early presentation and emergency aortic repair, these patients show increased chances of early mortality. The "onset of pain to surgery time" should become a mandatory factor when making comparable surgical evaluations in the field of AADA.

Features and risk factors of early intraluminal thrombus formation within the frozen elephant trunk stent graft.

OBJECTIVE: The frozen elephant trunk is a standard treatment method for aortic arch pathologies extending into the descending aorta. We previously described the phenomenon of early postoperative intraluminal thrombosis within the frozen elephant trunk. We investigated the features and predictors of intraluminal thrombosis. METHODS: A total of 281 patients (66% male, mean age 60 ± 12 years) underwent frozen elephant trunk implantation between May 2010 and November 2019. In 268 patients (95%), early postoperative computed tomography angiography was available to assess intraluminal thrombosis. RESULTS: The incidence of intraluminal thrombosis after frozen elephant trunk implantation was 8.2%. Intraluminal thrombosis was diagnosed early after the procedure (4.6 ± 2.9 days) and could be successfully treated with anticoagulation in 55% of patients. A total of 27% developed embolic complications. Mortality (27% vs 11%, P = .044) and morbidity were significantly higher in patients with intraluminal thrombosis. Our data showed a significant association of intraluminal thrombosis with prothrombotic medical conditions and anatomic slow flow features. The incidence of heparin-induced thrombopenia was higher in patients with intraluminal thrombosis (18% vs 3.3%, P = .011). Stent-graft diameter index, anticipated endoleak Ib, and degenerative aneurysm were significant independent predictors of intraluminal thrombosis. Therapeutic anticoagulation was a protective factor. Glomerular filtration rate, extracorporeal circulation time, postoperative rethoracotomy, and intraluminal thrombosis (odds ratio, 3.19, P = .047) were independent predictors of perioperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Intraluminal thrombosis is an underrecognized complication after frozen elephant trunk implantation. In patients with risk factors of intraluminal thrombosis indication for frozen elephant trunk should be carefully evaluated and postoperative anticoagulation considered. Early thoracic endovascular aortic repair extension should be considered in patients with intraluminal thrombosis to prevent embolic complications. Stent-graft designs should be improved to prevent intraluminal thrombosis after frozen elephant trunk implantation.

Coronary Angiography Within 30 Days From Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Indications, Findings, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The incidence, indications, and outcomes of coronary angiography (CAG) performed within 30 days following coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) have received limited study. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent CAG within 30 days following CABG between April 2018 and September 2021 at a large quaternary healthcare system. RESULTS: Of 2209 patients who underwent CABG during the study, 111 (5%) underwent CAG within 30 days following CABG. Mean age was 65 ± 10 years and they had high prevalence of comorbidities. Graft utilization was as follows: left internal mammary artery (LIMA) (84%); saphenous vein graft(s) (SVG) (81%); and right internal mammary artery (RIMA) (22%). The most common presentations/indications for angiography were cardiogenic shock (41%), ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (32%), and achieving complete revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (16%). The LIMA, RIMA, and SVGs were completely/partially occluded in 41 (44%), 10 (42%), and 11 (50%) of patients, respectively. Of the 111 patients who underwent CAG, 55 (50%) underwent PCI, including 47 (85%) to the native vessel and 8 (15%) to the bypass graft, and 19 (17%) underwent repeat sternotomy. Overall, 29 patients (26%) required 30-day readmission following CAG and 19 (17%) died. CONCLUSION: The incidence of CAG within 30 days following CABG is approximately 5%. Patients who need CAG following CABG have high complication rates (26% readmission and 17% mortality, respectively, at 30 days).

Open surgical replacement of the descending aorta: single-center experience.

Background: This study presents a single center's experience and analyzes clinical outcomes following elective open surgical descending aortic replacement. Methods: Between January 2000 and August 2019, 96 patients with mean age 64 years (range, 49.5-71 years) (62.5% (n=60) male) underwent elective descending aortic replacement due to aneurysm (n=60) or chronic dissection (n=36). Marfan syndrome was present in 12 patients (12.5%). Results: In-hospital mortality rate was 3.1% (n= 3. 2 in the aneurysm group, 1 in the dissection group). New-onset renal insufficiency postoperatively with (creatinine ≥ 2.5 mg/dl) manifested in 10 patients (10.8%). One patient (1%) suffered from stroke, and paraplegia developed in 1 pts (1%). The median follow-up time was 7 years (IQR: 2.5-13 years). The 5- and 10-year survival rates were 70.8% and 50.7% respectively. We did not observe any early or late prosthetic graft infection. The Cox proportional hazards regression analysis identified age (HR: 1.044, 95% CI: 1.009-1.080, p-value: 0.014), diabetes (HR: 2.544, 95% CI: 1.009-6.413, p-value: 0.048), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (HR: 2.259, 95% CI: 1.044-4.890, p-value: 0.039) as risk factors for late mortality. Conclusions: This study showed that the elective open surgical replacement of the descending aorta can be achieved with excellent outcomes in terms of perioperative mortality and morbidity. Prosthetic graft is not a problem with open surgical descending aortic replacement, even in the long term. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-022-01443-x.

Preoperative pericardial hematoma in patients with acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD): Do we need an adjusted treatment?

OBJECTIVE: An acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) is a critical emergency and remains one of the most challenging diseases in cardiothoracic surgery. The existence of a pericardial hematoma caused by an aortic rupture can dramatically reduce the chances of survival (Jerzewski and Kulik in J Card Surg 29(4):529-530, 2014; Mehta et al. in Circulation 105(2):200-206, 2002; Gilon et al. in Am J Cardiol 103(7):1029-1031, 2009; Isselbacher et al. in Circulation 90(5):2375-2378, 1994). We assessed the surgical outcome of a high-risk group of patients with AAAD and a pericardial hematoma. METHODS: In this study we included 430 Patients (67% male; median age: 64 years) who received surgical treatment between January 2000 and January 2018 at our facility for acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I. We divided the cohort in two groups: Group A consisted of high-risk patients with a pericardial hematoma (n = 162) and Group B of patients without pericardial hematoma (n = 268). RESULTS: Patients with a preoperative pericardial hematoma had a significantly higher requirement for preoperative mechanical resuscitation (A: 21%; B: 1.5%; P: < 0.001) and were relevantly more frequently admitted to the operation theater with an intubated status (A: 19.8%; B: 8.6%; P: < 0.001). The incidence of visceral malperfusion differed significantly between both groups (A. 11.7%, B. 6:0%; P: 0.034). Limited aortic arch repair (proximal aortic arch replacement) was preferred in the high-risk group (A: 51.9%; B: 40.3%; P: 0.020). However, survival time was generally reduced in these patients (A: 7.5 y; B: 9.9 y). CONCLUSION: AAAD patients with preoperative pericardial hematoma present themselves in potentially lethal conditions, with a significantly higher rate of visceral malperfusion. Despite the existence of this risk factor, a limited arch repair was favored. We have proven that cardiac compression is associated with preoperative intubation and mechanical resuscitation. Patients with pericardial hematoma must be further evaluated for preoperative pericardial drainage. In the event of long transfer times to an aortic center a slow drainage should be discussed to prevent early mortality.

Impact of preoperative malperfusion on postoperative outcomes in type A aortic dissection - importance of serum lactate estimation in ongoing malperfusion.

INTRODUCTION: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is one of the most critical emergencies in cardiovascular surgery. Additional complications such as organ malperfusion can significantly decrease the chances of survival. Despite promptly performed surgical treatment, impaired organ perfusion may persist, thus close postoperative monitoring is recommended. But, is there a surgical consequence due to the existence of a preoperatively known malperfusion and is there a correlation between pre-, peri- and postoperative levels of serum lactate and proven malperfusion? METHODS: Between 2011 and 2018, 200 patients (66% male; median age: 62.5 years; interquartile range: +/-12.4 years) that received surgical treatment at our institution for an acute dissection DeBakey type I were enrolled in this study. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the preoperative existence of malperfusion and non-malperfusion. At least one kind of malperfusion occurred in 74 patients (Group A: 37%), while 126 patients (Group B: 63%) showed no evidence of malperfusion. Furthermore, lactate levels of both cohorts were differentiated into four periods: preoperative, intraoperative, 24 hours after surgery, and 2-4 days after surgery. RESULTS: The patients' status differed significantly prior to surgery. Group A (malperfusion) showed an elevated requirement for mechanical resuscitation (A: 10.8%; B: 5.6%; p: 0.173), were significantly more often admitted in an intubated state (A: 14.9%; B: 2.4%; p: 0.001) and showed higher incidences of stroke (A: 18.9% (n = 149); B: 3.2% (n = 4); p: 0.001). Levels of serum lactate from the preoperative period until days 2-4 were significantly increased in the malperfusion cohort at all times. CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting malperfusion due to ATAAD may significantly increase the chance of early mortality in patients with ATAAD. Serum lactate levels were a reliable marker for inadequate perfusion from admission until day 4 after surgery. Despite this, early intervention survival in this cohort remains limited.

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement using a straight tube graft (David I procedure).

OBJECTIVES: We present our 25-year experience with valve-sparing aortic root replacement using a straight tube graft (David-I). METHODS: From 1993 to 2019, 677 patients (median age, 56.0 years; range, 42-65) underwent the David-I procedure with a straight tube graft. A total of 24 different surgeons performed these operations. Marfan syndrome was present in 111 patients (16.4%), and bicuspid aortic valve was present in 71 patients (10.5%). Aortic root aneurysm was present in 544 patients (80.4%), and acute dissection was present in 133 patients (19.6%). RESULTS: Ministernotomy was used in 57 patients (8.4%). Additional cusp plasty was performed in 84 patients (12.4%). Concomitant procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 122, 18.0%), mitral valve surgery (n = 34, 5%), proximal arch replacement (n = 125, 18.4%), subtotal arch replacement (n = 43, 6.4%), and total arch replacement (n = 102, 15.1%). Overall in-hospital mortality was 4.0% (n = 27), and perioperative stroke occurred in 26 patients (3.8%). Postoperative echocardiography showed aortic insufficiency less than I° in 600 of 623 (96.3%). The 1-, 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year survivals were 97%, 92%, 79%, 68%, and 50%, respectively. The rates for freedom from aortic valve-related reoperation at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were 97%, 92%, 87%, 84%, and 80%, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified age (odds ratio, 0.974; 95% confidence interval, 0.957-0.992; P = .004), senior surgeon (odds ratio, 0.546; 95% confidence interval, 0.305-0.979; P = .042), and residual postoperative aortic insufficiency (odds ratio, 4.864; 95% confidence interval, 1.124-21.052; P = .034) as independent risk factors for aortic valve-related reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: The aortic valve-sparing David-I procedure can be performed with very low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The short- and long-term results are excellent. The straight tube graft does not lead to increased leaflet erosion. This procedure is reproducible by multiple surgeons.

Valve-sparing David procedure via minimally invasive access does not compromise outcome.

Objectives: Aortic valve sparing-aortic root replacement (David procedure) has not been routinely performed via minimally invasive access due to its complexity. We compared our results of elective David procedure via minimally invasive access to those via a full sternotomy. Methods: Between 1993 and 2019, a total of 732 patients underwent a valve sparing root replacement (David) procedure. Out of these, 220 patients underwent elective David-I procedure (isolated) without any other concomitant procedures at our center. Patients were assigned to either group A (n = 42, mini-access) or group B (n = 178, full sternotomy). Results: Cardiopulmonary bypass time were 188.5 ± 35.4 min in group A and 149.0 (135.5-167.5) in group B (p < 0.001). Aortic cross-clamp time were 126.2 ± 27.2 min in group A and 110.0 (97.0-126.0) in group B (p < 0.001). Post-operative echocardiography showed aortic insufficiency ≤ I° in 41 (100%) patients of group A and 155 (95%) of group B. In-hospital mortality was 2.4% (n = 1) in group A and 0% (n = 0) in group B (p = 0.191). Perioperative stroke occurred in 1 (2.4%) patient of group A and 2 (1.1%) patients of group B (p = 0.483). Reexploration for bleeding was necessary in 4 (9.5%) patients of group A and 7 (3.9%) of group B (p = 0.232). Follow-up was complete for 98% of all patients. The 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-year survival rates were: 97, 97, 97, and 97%, in group A (mini-access) and 99, 96, 95, and 92% in group B (full sternotomy), respectively. The rates for freedom from valve-related re-operation at 1, 2, 4, and 6 years after initial surgery were: 97, 95, 95, and 84% in group A and 97, 95, 91, and 90% in group B, respectively. Conclusion: Early post-operative results after David procedure via minimally invasive access are comparable to conventional full sternotomy. Meticulous attention to hemostasis is a critical factor during minimally access David procedures. Long-term outcome including the durability of the reimplanted aortic valve seems to be comparable, too.

Is aortic valve-sparing root reimplantation (David-I) justified in cardiac redo surgery?

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve-sparing root reimplantation (AVSRR) is a complex procedure, which offers the benefit of preserving the native aortic valve. Cardiac redo surgery is complex and time-consuming, and it is not known if David procedure is safe or beneficial in this context. METHODS: Between 1993 and 2019, we performed a total of 544 elective AVSRR operations at our centre. Patients were assigned to either group A (n = 30, redo) or group B (n = 514, first-time sternotomy). RESULTS: Aortic cross-clamp time was higher in the redo group (173[62] vs 125[31], P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was higher in the redo group as well (250[78] vs 179[51], P < 0.001). There were significantly more concomitant total arch replacements in the redo group (43.3% vs 5.8%, P < 0.001) using the 'beating heart' technique (20.0% vs 1.9%, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was comparable in both groups (3.3% vs 1.8%, P = 0.44). The rates for perioperative complications in terms of permanent neurological deficit and rethoracotomy were comparable between the 2 groups, too. Follow-up was complete for 99.6% of all patients and comprised a total of 584 patient-years. The 1-, 5-, 10- and 15-year survival rates were 90%, 81%, 60% and 55%, in group A (redo) and 96%, 90%, 78% and 67% in group B (native, P = 0.16), respectively. The rates for freedom from valve-related reoperation at 1, 5, 10 and 15 years after initial surgery were 96%, 92%, 92% and 92% in group A (redo) and 97%, 92%, 87% and 84% in group B (native, P = 0.52), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significantly more concomitant total arch replacements in the redo group, early mortality was comparable in both groups. We conclude that AVSRR can be performed in redo cardiac surgery without compromising the early postoperative outcome. Careful patient assessment and selection are mandatory when evaluating patients with a history of previous cardiac surgery for David procedure.

Frozen elephant trunk in acute aortic type a dissection: risk analysis of concomitant root replacement.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse whether full root replacement increases perioperative risks in patients who undergo frozen elephant trunk for acute aortic dissection. METHODS: Between March 2013 and December 2019, 115 patients underwent emergency frozen elephant trunk for acute dissection. Patients without root replacement were assigned to group A, while patients with concomitant full root replacement to group B. RESULTS: Mean age was 50.8 (12.5) years and 85 (73.9%) patients were male. Preoperative malperfusion was present in 49 (42.6%) patients. In group B, 27 (41.5%) patients received composite root replacement and 38 (33.0%) aortic valve-sparing David procedure. Cardiopulmonary-bypass and cross-clamp times were 252.5 (208.5-293.0) and 96.0 (40.5-148.0) min in group A, and 310.0 (274.0-346.5) and 121.0 (89.0-182.0) in group B (P < 0.001). Continuous myocardial perfusion was used in 40 (80.0%) patients of group A and 59 (90.8%) of group B (P = 0.098). Disabling stroke was present in 10 (20.0%) patients in group A and 12 (18.5%) in group B (P = 0.835). Thirty-day mortality was 12.0% (n = 6) in group A and 9.2% (n = 6) in group B (P = 0.630). The 1- and 5-year survival rates were 80% and 62% in group A, and 81% and 79% in group B. Logistic regression analysis identified age (odds ratio = 1.117, 95% confidence interval = 1.004-1.242, P = 0.041), cardiopulmonary-bypass time (odds ratio = 1.012, 95% confidence interval = 1.001-1.022, P = 0.029) and abdominal malperfusion (odds ratio = 17.394, 95% confidence interval = 2.030-149.013, P = 0.009) to be associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Full root replacement does not increase the perioperative risk in patients who undergo frozen elephant trunk for acute dissection. Careful patient selection is important for such complex procedures. Continuous myocardial perfusion can help reducing the risk for intraoperative complications during such complex operations.