Proximal versus extensive repair in acute type A aortic dissection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of proximal repair (PR) versus extensive repair (ER) for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD).

METHODS

A literature search in three databases was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Studies comparing PR versus ER for ATAAD were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies incorporating 7113 patients (PR: 5080; ER: 2033) were included. Patients undergoing PR presented decreased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.67 [95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.53-0.85]; p < 0.01) and post-operative bleeding (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.60-0.95]; p = 0.02) compared to ER. Meta-regression analysis revealed that in-hospital mortality was not influenced by differences regarding the extent of dissection (p = 0.43). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (SMD:-0.93 [95% CI - 1.22, - 0.66]; p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (SMD:-0.19 [95% CI - 0.34, - 0.05]; p = 0.01) were also lower in the PR group, while there was no difference in terms of renal failure and permanent neurological deficit. The ER approach demonstrated a lower post-discharge mortality compared to PR (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.09, 1.97]; p = 0.01), while the post-discharge reoperation rate was comparable between the two groups. 1 and 3-year overall survival (OS) were comparable between PR and ER (OR 1.05, [95% CI 0.77-1.44]; p = 0.76) and (OR 1.27 [95% CI 0.86-1.86]; p = 0.23), respectively. The 5-year OS (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.16-2.41]; p = 0.01) was in favor of the PR arm.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ATAAD, PR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality but higher odds of late mortality. ER and PR demonstrated similar post-operative complication and reoperation rates.