Frozen elephant trunk versus conventional proximal repair of acute aortic dissection type I.

OBJECTIVE

The extent of surgery and the role of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) for surgical repair of acute aortic dissection type I are still subjects of debate. The aim of the study is to evaluate the short- and long-term results of acute surgical repair of aortic dissection type I using the FET compared to standard proximal aortic repair.

METHODS

Between October 2009 and December 2016, 172 patients underwent emergent surgery for acute type I aortic dissection at our center. Of these,  = 72 received a FET procedure, while the other 100 patients received a conventional proximal aortic repair. Results were compared between the two surgery groups. The primary endpoints included 30-day rates of mortality and neurologic deficit and follow-up rates of mortality and aortic-related reintervention.

RESULTS

Demographic data were comparable between the groups, except for a higher proportion of men in the FET group (76.4% vs. 60.0%,  = 0.03). The median age was 62 years [IQR (20),  = 0.17], and the median log EuroSCORE was 38.6% [IQR (31.4),  = 0.21]. The mean follow-up time was 68.3 ± 33.8 months. Neither early (FET group 15.3% vs. proximal group 23.0%,  = 0.25) nor late (FET group 26.2% vs. proximal group 23.0%,  = 0.69) mortality showed significant differences between the groups. There were fewer strokes in the FET patients (FET group 2.8% vs. proximal group 11.0%,  = 0.04), and the rates of spinal cord injury were similar between the groups (FET group 4.2% vs. proximal group 2.0%,  = 0.41). Aortic-related reintervention rates did not differ between the groups (FET group 12.1% vs. proximal group 9.8%,  = 0.77).

CONCLUSION

Emergent FET repair for acute aortic dissection type I is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. The benefits of the FET procedure in the long term remain unclear. Prolonged follow-up data are needed.