ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of optimized arterial perfusion strategy on total arch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) with malperfusion syndrome (MPS).MethodsFrom 2017 to 2019, 51 patients with AAAD and MPS who had received total arch replacement with optimized arterial perfusion strategy in our hospital were included in the optimized perfusion group, including 40 males and 11 females, with an average age of 47.43±13.39 years. A total of 40 patients with AAAD and MPS who had been treated with traditional Sun's surgery were taken as the traditional control group, including 31 males and 9 females, with an average age of 50.66±12.05 years. The perioperative clinical data of the two groups were compared.ResultsThe preoperative baseline data of the two groups were basically consistent (P>0.05). The comparison of operative data between the optimized perfusion group and the traditional control group showed that in the optimized perfusion group, the extracorporeal circulation time, aortic occlusion time, and circulation-out cerebral perfusion time were significantly less than those in the traditional control group (223.64±65.13 min vs. 266.77±87.04 min, 114.48±27.28 min vs. 138.20±39.89 min, 8.28±3.81 min vs. 50.53±23.60 min, all P≤0.05). The lowest intraoperative nasopharyngeal temperature in the optimized perfusion group was significantly higher than that in the traditional control group (27.10±1.18℃ vs. 23.6±3.30℃, P=0.000). Postoperative wakefulness time of the optimized perfusion group was earlier than that of the traditional control group (4.50±1.35 h vs. 5.27±1.15 h, P=0.019). The volume of blood transfusions in the optimized perfusion group was significantly less than that in the traditional control group (13.25±9.06 U vs. 16.95±7.53 U, P=0.046). There was no significant difference in ICU time and invasive ventilation time between the two groups (P>0.05). Postoperative complications of the two groups showed that the incidence of postoperative continuous renal replacement therapy in the optimized perfusion group was significantly lower than that in the traditional control group, with a statistically significant difference (21.6% vs. 42.5% P=0.003). The incidence of postoperative delirium, coma, low cardiac row syndrome and limb ischemia in the optimized perfusion group was lower than that in the traditional control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The incidence of postoperative hemiplegia, sepsis, and secondary thoracotomy in the optimized perfusion group was higher than that in the traditional control group, and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Postoperative mortality in the optimized perfusion group was significantly lower than that in the traditional control group (13.7% vs. 27.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.102).ConclusionOptimized arterial perfusion strategy and its related comprehensive surgical technique reduce surgical trauma, shorten the operation time, reduce perioperative consumption of blood products. Postoperative wakefulness is rapid and the incidence of complications of nervous system, kidney and limb ischemia is low. Optimized arterial perfusion strategy is suitable for operation of AAAD with MPS by inhibiting the related potential death risk factors to reduce operation mortality.
ObjectiveTo explore the single-center experience of hybrid therapy in treatment of Stanford type A aortic dissection, and to make a comparison of the clinical results of this hybrid therapy with total arch replacement surgery in the same period.MethodsFrom March 2017 to April 2020, 272 patients with Stanford type A aortic dissection underwent surgical treatment in our center, including 147 patients (126 males and 21 females) who received the aortic arch surgery. Among them, 106 patients underwent replacement of ascending aorta+aortic arch+stent trunk (total arch replacement group), while 41 patients underwent one-stop compound total arch type Ⅱ hybrid surgery (compound total arch replacement group). We tried to identify whether hybrid surgery really simplified total arch replacement surgery of the aortic dissection by comparing the operative mortality, postoperative complication rate, operative time, extracorporeal circulation time, etc.ResultsThere was no statistical difference in preoperative clinical data or death rate between the two groups. However, blood transfusion (6.74±7.35 U vs. 4.65±6.87 U, P<0.05), postoperative respiratory insufficiency [16 (15.09%) vs. 2 (4.88%), P<0.05], and apoplexy [3 (2.83%) vs. 0, P<0.05], paraplegia [2 (1.89%) vs. 0, P<0.05], in the compound total arch replacement group was significantly better than those of the total arch replacement group. The compound total arch replacement group did not shorten the total operation time, but it was significantly better in terms of extracorporeal circulation time (175.50±55.70 min vs. 129.70±48.80 min, P<0.05), aortic block time (103.10±23.70 min vs. 49.70±30.10 min, P<0.05), and the time of stopping the circulation or avoiding stopping the circulation (32.10±7.20 min vs. 0 min, P<0.05). The postoperative mechanical ventilation time was shorter in the compound total arch group (62.60±31.70 h vs. 41.30±32.60 h, P<0.05), and the time of staying in ICU (124.50±61.50 h vs. 63.40±71.20 h, P<0.05) and the postoperative hospital stay (13.50±11.20 d vs. 9.20±7.20 d, P<0.05) were significantly shorter than those in the total replacement group. A total of 138 patients were followed up for 6-38 (15.8±6.4) months. There was no statistical difference in one-year mortality or three-year mortality (P>0.05).ConclusionHybrid surgery shortens extracorporeal circulation time, while reduces or avoids the time of deep hypothermia circulatory arrest, the incidence of complications and the time of hospital stay. In conclusions, hybrid surgery simplifies the arch management of acute Stanford type A aortic dissection.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of proximal aortic repair (PAR) versus total arch replacement (TAR) for treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). Methods An electronic search was conducted for clinical controlled studies on PAR versus TAR for patients with ATAAD published in Medline via PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wanfang Database and CNKI since their inception up to April 30, 2022. The quality of each study included was assessed by 2 evaluators and the necessary data were extracted. STATA 16 software was used to perform statistical analysis of the available data. ResultsA total of 28 cohort studies involving 7 923 patients with ATAAD were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 5 710 patients received PAR and 2 213 patients underwent TAR, and 96.43% of the studies (27/28) were rated as high quality. The meta-analysis results showed that: (1) patients who underwent PAR had lower incidences of 30 d mortality [RR=0.62, 95%CI (0.50, 0.77), P＜0.001], in-hospital mortality [RR=0.64, 95%CI (0.54, 0.77), P＜0.001], and neurologic deficiency after surgery [RR=0.84, 95%CI (0.72, 0.98), P=0.032] than those who received TAR; (2) the cardiopulmonary bypass time [WMD=–52.07, 95%CI (–74.19, –29.94), P＜0.001], circulatory arrest time [WMD=–10.14, 95%CI (–15.02, –5.26), P＜0.001], and operation time [WMD=–101.68, 95%CI (–178.63, –24.73), P＜0.001] were significantly shorter in PAR than those in TAR; (3) there was no statistical difference in mortality after discharge, rate of over 5-year survival, renal failure after surgery and re-intervention, volume of red blood cells transfusion and fresh-frozen plasma transfusion, or hospital stay between two surgical procedures. Conclusion Compared with TAR, PAR has a shorter operation time and lower early and in-hospital mortality, but there is no difference in long-term outcomes or complications between the two procedures for patients with ATAAD.
Objective To analyze the etiologies, surgical treatment and outcomes of retrograde type A aortic dissection (RTAD) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for Stanford type B aortic dissection. Methods The clinical data of patients with RTAD after TEVAR for Stanford type B aortic dissection receiving operations in Changhai Hospital from March 2014 to August 2018 were analyzed. All patients were followed-up by clinic interview or telephone. Results A total of 16 patients were enrolled, including 13 males and 3 females with a mean age of 49.1±12.2 years. The main symptoms of RTAD were chest pain in 12 patients, headache in 1 patient, conscious disturbance in 1 patient, and asymptomatic in 2 patients. All the 16 patients received total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique. Bentall procedure was used in 2 patients, aortic root plasticity in 10 patients and aortic valve replacement in 1 patient. The primary tear in 10 patients was located in the area which were anchored by bare mental stent, and in the other 6 patients it was located in the anterior part of ascending aorta. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 152.2±29.4 min, aortic cross-clamping time was 93.6±27.8 min and selective cerebral perfusion time was 29.8±8.3 min. There was no death in hospital or within postoperative 30 days. The follow-up period was 32-85 (57.4±18.3) months. No death occurred during the follow-up period. One patient underwent TEVAR again 3 years after this operation and had an uneventful survival. Conclusion Total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique is a suitable strategy for the management of RTAD after TEVAR for Stanford type B aortic dissection.