Late outcomes of strategic arch resection in acute type A aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing hemiarch and aggressive arch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD).

METHODS

From 1996 to 2017, we compared outcomes of hemiarch (n = 322) versus aggressive arch replacements (zones 2 and 3 arch replacement with implantation of 2-4 arch branches, n = 150) in ATAAD. Indications for aggressive arch were arch aneurysm >4 cm or intimal tear in the aortic arch that was not resectable by hemiarch replacement, or dissection of arch branches with malperfusion.

RESULTS

Patients in the aggressive arch group were significantly younger (mean age: 57 vs 61 years old) and had significantly longer hypothermic circulatory arrest, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic crossclamp times. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between hemiarch and aggressive arch groups, including 30-day mortality (5.3% vs 7.3%, P = .38) and postoperative stroke rate (7% vs 7%, P = .96). Over 15 years, Kaplan-Meier survival was similar between hemiarch and aggressive arch groups (log-rank P = .55, 10-year survival 70% vs 72%). Given death as a competing factor, incidence rates of reoperation over 15 years (2.1% vs 2.0% per year, P = 1) and 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation (14% vs 12%, P = .89) for arch and distal aorta pathology were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both hemiarch and aggressive arch replacement are appropriate approaches for select patients with ATAAD. Aggressive arch replacement should be considered for an arch aneurysm >4 cm or an intimal tear at the arch unable to be resected by hemiarch replacement, or dissection of the arch branches with malperfusion.