Dissection of Arch Branches Alone: An Indication for Aggressive Arch Management in Type A Dissection?

BACKGROUND

It is controversial if extension of aortic dissection into arch branches should be an indication for replacement of the arch and its branches in acute type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

From 2008 to April 2018, 399 patients underwent open repair for an acute type A aortic dissection, and 190 patients had known innominate and/or left common carotid artery dissection without malperfusion syndrome, including no arch procedure (n = 1)/hemiarch replacement (n = 109) and zone 1/2/3 arch replacement (n = 80) with replacement of 1 to 4 arch branch vessels.

RESULTS

Median patient age was 58 years. Preoperative comorbidities were similar between groups, except the hemiarch group had more coronary artery disease (22% vs 3%, P = .0002). Both groups underwent similar aortic root procedures and other concomitant procedures with equivalent cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times. The zone 1/2/3 group had longer hypothermic circulatory arrest times with greater use of antegrade cerebral perfusion (all P < .05). The perioperative and midterm outcomes were similar between the hemiarch and zone 1/2/3 arch groups, including 30-day mortality (7% vs 5%), rates of transient ischemic attack and stroke, incidence rates of reoperation for distal aortic pathology with a mean follow-up time of 3.5 years, and 5-year survival (79% [95% confidence interval, 69%-87%] vs 85% [95% confidence interval, 71%-93%]). However the hemiarch group had a trend of increased cumulative incidence of reoperation (8-year, 23% vs 9%; P = .33).

CONCLUSIONS

In acute type A aortic dissection, dissection of arch branches alone should not be an indication for routine zone 1/2/3 arch replacement; however zone 1/2/3 arch replacement could be considered to prevent future reoperations in select patients.