Is limited aortic resection more justified in elderly patients with type A acute aortic dissection?-insights from single center experience.

BACKGROUND

This study compared limited aortic repair (ascending, and /or hemi-arch replacement) versus extended-arch repair (ascending, arch and proximal descending aortic replacement) used for patients aged 65 or older, who had type A acute aortic dissection (AAD), analyzing the influence of the extent of aortic repair on outcomes.

METHODS

From January, 2001 to December, 2015, 103 patients aged 65 or older underwent operation due to type A AAD in Nanjing First Hospital. The cohort was divided into two subgroups according to the surgical approaches, including limited aortic replacement (LAR, n = 41) and total arch replacement + stent elephant trunk implantation (TAR+SET, n = 62).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in gender, age, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, PCI history, atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, aortic valve insufficiency (≥ moderate), shock situation before operation, and Euro-score II between the two groups except limb malperfusion and tear location. The cross-clamp time, CPB time, intubation time, ICU stay time and hospital time were all significantly less in the LAR group than in the TAR+SET group. A total of 89 patients were discharged home successfully after operation, with a difference of hospital mortality (P = 0.04). The overall survival rates at 5-year follow-up were 82.5 ± 6.0% in LAR group and 75.2 ± 5.6% in TAR+SET group, but with no difference (p = 0.151). The freedom from adverse aortic events at 5-year was 84.3 ± 6.5% in LAR group versus 97.9 ± 2.1% in TAR+SET group, with a statistical difference (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

These findings support limited aortic resection is acceptable for elderly patients with type A AAD if surgical principles allow.