Background: This study explored (1) if long-distance transfer was safe for patients suffering from acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) and (2) analyzed the effectiveness of helicopter transfer and cloud-type imaging transfer systems for such patients in northern Hokkaido, Japan. Method and Results: The study included 112 consecutive patients who underwent emergency surgical treatment for AADA from April 2014 to September 2020. The patients were divided into two groups according to the location of referral source hospitals: the Asahikawa-city group (group A, n = 49) and the out-of-the-city group (group O, n = 63). Use of helicopter transfer (n = 13) and cloud-type telemedicine (n = 20) in group O were reviewed as sub-analyses. Transfer distance differed between groups (4.2±3.5 km in group A vs 107.3±69.2 km in group O; p = 0.0001), but 30-day mortality (10.2% in group A vs. 7.9% in group O; p = 0.676) and hospital mortality (12.2% in group A vs. 9.5% in group O; p = 0.687) did not differ. Operative outcomes did not differ with or without helicopter and cloud-type telemedicine, but diagnosis-to-operation time was shorter with helicopter (240.0±70.8 vs 320.0±78.5 min; p = 0.031) and telemedicine (242.0±75.2 vs 319.0±83.8 min; p = 0.007). Conclusions: We found that long-distance transfer did not impair surgical outcomes in AADA patients, and both helicopter transfer and cloud-type telemedicine system could contribute to the reduction of diagnosis-to-operation time in the large Hokkaido area. Further studies are mandatory to investigate if the both systems will improve clinical outcomes.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of proximal repair vs. extensive arch surgery for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection.SubjectsFrom April 2014 to September 2020, 121 consecutive patients with acute type A dissection were surgically treated at our institute. Of these patients, 92 had dissections extending beyond the ascending aorta.MethodsOf the 92 patients, 58 underwent proximal repair, including aortic root and/or hemiarch replacement, and 34 underwent extended repair, including partial and total arch replacement. Perioperative variables and early and late postoperative results were statistically analyzed.ResultsThe duration of surgery, cardiopulmonary bypass, and circulatory arrest was significantly shorter in the proximal repair group (p < 0.01). The overall operative mortality rate was 10.3% in the proximal repair group and 14.7% in the extended repair group (p = 0.379). The mean follow-up period was 31.1 ± 26.7 months in the proximal repair group and 35.3 ± 26.8 months in the extended repair group. During follow-up, the cumulative survival and freedom from reintervention rates at 5 years were 66.4% and 92.9% in the proximal repair group, and 76.1% and 72.6% in the extended repair group, respectively (p = 0.515 and p = 0.134).ConclusionsNo significant differences were found in the rates of long-term cumulative survival and freedom from aortic reintervention between the two surgical strategies. These findings suggest limited aortic resection achieves acceptable patient outcomes.