Femoral arterial cannulation for surgical repair of stanford type A aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms associated with femoral artery cannulation over other sites of arterial cannulation for surgical repair of acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD) are not conclusively established. METHODS: We evaluated the outcomes after surgery for TAAD using femoral artery cannulation, supra-aortic arterial cannulation (i.e., innominate/subclavian/axillary artery cannulation), and direct aortic cannulation. RESULTS: 3751 (96.1%) patients were eligible for this analysis. In-hospital mortality using supra-aortic arterial cannulation was comparable to femoral artery cannulation (17.8% vs. 18.4%; adjusted OR 0.846, 95% CI 0.799-1.202). This finding was confirmed in 1028 propensity score-matched pairs of patients with supra-aortic arterial cannulation or femoral artery cannulation (17.5% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.770). In-hospital mortality after direct aortic cannulation was lower compared to femoral artery cannulation (14.0% vs. 18.4%, adjusted OR 0.703, 95% CI 0.529-0.934). Among 583 propensity score-matched pairs of patients, direct aortic cannulation was associated with lower rates of in-hospital mortality (13.4% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.004) compared to femoral artery cannulation. Switching of the primary site of arterial cannulation was associated with increased rate of in-hospital mortality (36.5% vs. 17.0%; adjusted OR 2.730, 95% CI 1.564-4.765). Ten-year mortality was similar in the study cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the outcomes of surgery for TAAD using femoral arterial cannulation were comparable to those using supra-aortic arterial cannulation. However, femoral arterial cannulation was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than direct aortic cannulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration code: NCT04831073.

Direct Aortic Versus Supra-Aortic Arterial Cannulation During Surgery for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

AIMS: In this study we evaluated the impact of direct aortic cannulation versus innominate/subclavian/axillary artery cannulation on the outcome after surgery for type A aortic dissection. METHODS: The outcomes of patients included in a multicenter European registry (ERTAAD) who underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection with direct aortic cannulation versus those with innominate/subclavian/axillary artery cannulation, i.e. supra-aortic arterial cannulation, were compared using propensity score matched analysis. RESULTS: Out of 3902 consecutive patients included in the registry, 2478 (63.5%) patients were eligible for this analysis. Direct aortic cannulation was performed in 627 (25.3%) patients, while supra-aortic arterial cannulation in 1851 (74.7%) patients. Propensity score matching yielded 614 pairs of patients. Among them, patients who underwent surgery for TAAD with direct aortic cannulation had significantly decreased in-hospital mortality (12.7% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.009) compared to those who had supra-aortic arterial cannulation. Furthermore, direct aortic cannulation was associated with decreased postoperative rates of paraparesis/paraplegia (2.0 vs. 6.0%, p < 0.0001), mesenteric ischemia (1.8 vs. 5.1%, p = 0.002), sepsis (7.0 vs. 14.2%, p < 0.0001), heart failure (11.2 vs. 15.2%, p = 0.043), and major lower limb amputation (0 vs. 1.0%, p = 0.031). Direct aortic cannulation showed a trend toward decreased risk of postoperative dialysis (10.1 vs. 13.7%, p = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter cohort study showed that direct aortic cannulation compared to supra-aortic arterial cannulation is associated with a significant reduction of the risk of in-hospital mortality after surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04831073.

Current Outcome after Surgery for Type A Aortic Dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of different surgical strategies for acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal extent of aortic resection during surgery for acute TAAD is controversial. METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent surgery for acute TAAD at 18 European hospitals. RESULTS: Out of 3902 consecutive patients, 689 (17.7%) died during the index hospitalization. Among 2855 patients who survived 3 months after surgery, 10-year observed survival was 65.3%, while country-adjusted, age-adjusted, and sex-adjusted expected survival was 81.3%, yielding a relative survival of 80.4%. Among 558 propensity score-matched pairs, total aortic arch replacement increased the risk of in-hospital (21.0% vs. 14.9%, P =0.008) and 10-year mortality (47.1% vs. 40.1%, P =0.001), without decreasing the incidence of distal aortic reoperation (10-year: 8.9% vs. 7.4%, P =0.690) compared with ascending aortic replacement. Among 933 propensity score-matched pairs, in-hospital mortality (18.5% vs. 18.0%, P =0.765), late mortality (at 10-year: 44.6% vs. 41.9%, P =0.824), and cumulative incidence of proximal aortic reoperation (at 10-year: 4.4% vs. 5.9%, P =0.190) after aortic root replacement was comparable to supracoronary aortic replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Replacement of the aortic root and aortic arch did not decrease the risk of aortic reoperation in patients with TAAD and should be performed only in the presence of local aortic injury or aneurysm. The relative survival of TAAD patients is poor and suggests that the causes underlying aortic dissection may also impact late mortality despite surgical repair of the dissected aorta.

Outcome after Surgery for Iatrogenic Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

(1) Background: Acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD) may complicate the outcome of cardiovascular procedures. Data on the outcome after surgery for iatrogenic acute TAAD is scarce. (2) Methods: The European Registry of Type A Aortic Dissection (ERTAAD) is a multicenter, retrospective study including patients who underwent surgery for acute TAAD at 18 hospitals from eight European countries. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 5-year mortality. Twenty-seven secondary outcomes were evaluated. (3) Results: Out of 3902 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for acute TAAD, 103 (2.6%) had iatrogenic TAAD. Cardiac surgery (37.8%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (36.9%) were the most frequent causes leading to iatrogenic TAAD, followed by diagnostic coronary angiography (13.6%), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (10.7%) and peripheral endovascular procedure (1.0%). In hospital mortality was 20.5% after cardiac surgery, 31.6% after percutaneous coronary intervention, 42.9% after diagnostic coronary angiography, 45.5% after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and nihil after peripheral endovascular procedure (p = 0.092), with similar 5-year mortality between different subgroups of iatrogenic TAAD (p = 0.710). Among 102 propensity score matched pairs, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among patients with iatrogenic TAAD (30.4% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.013) compared to those with spontaneous TAAD. This finding was likely related to higher risk of postoperative heart failure (35.3% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.0001) among iatrogenic TAAD patients. Five-year mortality was comparable between patients with iatrogenic and spontaneous TAAD (46.2% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.163). (4) Conclusions: Iatrogenic origin of acute TAAD is quite uncommon but carries a significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality compared to spontaneous TAAD.