Is limited aortic resection more justified in elderly patients with type A acute aortic dissection?

Abstract

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.