Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Dec 1;52(6):1104-1110. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx214.
The recommended extent of surgical resection and reconstruction of the arch in acute DeBakey Type I aortic dissection is an ongoing controversy. However, several recent reports indicate a trend towards a more extensive arch operation in several institutions. We have analysed the recent data from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection to assess the choice of procedure over time and to evaluate the surgical outcome in a 'real-world' database. Our aim was to compare short- and mid-term outcomes of limited repairs versus complete arch surgery.
Of the 1241 patients included in the 'Interventional Cohort' of the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection from March 1996 to March 2015, 907 underwent ascending aortic or hemiarch replacement (Group A) and 334 had extended arch replacement (Group B). An extended resection was a surgeon's 'judgement call'. Logistic regression analysis, propensity-adjusted multivariable comparisons and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for analyses.
Overall in-hospital mortality was 14.2% with no difference between groups (Group A 13.1%, Group B 17.1%). Coma/altered consciousness (odds ratio 3.16, 95% confidence interval 1.60-6.25, P = 0.001), hypotension, tamponade or shock (2.03, 1.11-3.73, P = 0.022) and any pulse deficit (1.92, 1.04-3.54, P = 0.038) were predictors of in-hospital mortality in a propensity score-adjusted multivariable analysis. Overall 5-year survival was 69.4% in the ascending group and 73.1% in the total arch group (P = 0.83 by Kaplan-Meier analysis). For survivors of the index hospitalization, the 5-year freedom from death, aortic rupture and reintervention were 71.1% in Group A and 76.4% in Group B (P = 0.54 by Kaplan-Meier analysis).
Selective, or 'surgeon's choice', extended arch replacement had no discernible acute downside compared with less extensive surgery. Whether extended arch replacement improves the prognosis beyond 5 years remains to be settled.
急性 DeBakey Ⅰ型主动脉夹层中推荐的弓部手术切除和重建范围一直存在争议。然而,最近的几项报告表明,在一些医疗机构中,弓部手术的范围有扩大的趋势。我们分析了国际急性主动脉夹层注册中心最近的数据,以评估随着时间的推移手术方法的选择,并评估真实世界数据库中的手术结果。我们的目的是比较有限修复与完全弓部手术的短期和中期结果。
在 1996 年 3 月至 2015 年 3 月国际急性主动脉夹层注册中心的“介入队列”中纳入的 1241 例患者中,907 例行升主动脉或半弓置换(A 组),334 例行弓部置换(B 组)。广泛切除是外科医生的“判断”。采用逻辑回归分析、倾向调整多变量比较和 Kaplan-Meier 曲线进行分析。
全组院内死亡率为 14.2%,两组间无差异(A 组 13.1%,B 组 17.1%)。昏迷/意识改变(比值比 3.16,95%置信区间 1.60-6.25,P=0.001)、低血压、填塞或休克(2.03,1.11-3.73,P=0.022)和任何脉搏缺失(1.92,1.04-3.54,P=0.038)是倾向评分调整多变量分析中院内死亡的预测因素。升主动脉组 5 年总生存率为 69.4%,全弓组为 73.1%(Kaplan-Meier 分析 P=0.83)。对于索引住院期间的幸存者,A 组和 B 组 5 年免于死亡、主动脉破裂和再次介入的比例分别为 71.1%和 76.4%(Kaplan-Meier 分析 P=0.54)。
选择性或“外科医生选择”的广泛弓部置换与不广泛的手术相比,急性方面没有明显的劣势。广泛弓部置换是否能改善 5 年以上的预后仍有待解决。