Abstract
BACKGROUND: While surgery is almost always indicated for acute type A aortic dissections (ATAADs), the extent of surgery is often debated, with some surgeons preferring a conservative option and others preferring a more radical option This study aims to assess the outcome after surgery for ATAAD and the prognostic impact of surgical strategy (with vs. without aortic arch replacement). METHODS: Data was gathered between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2021 and retrospectively analyzed with multivariable logistic and Cox regression to ascertain risk factors and survival respectively. RESULTS: A total of 601 patients underwent type A aortic dissection repair across the recruiting centers with an operative mortality of 24.3% (146 patients) which was considerably linked with the clinical condition at presentation. In-hospital mortality was 23.1% for ascending and root replacement alone vs. 28.7% for arch involvement. Overall survival was 73.3% after the first year, 68.2% at 5 years, and 53.5% at 10 years. The median follow-up period was 2.5 years [interquartile range (IQR), 6.6 years]. Aortic arch replacements were more often carried out in younger patients and those without adverse clinical conditions, although outcomes for patients who underwent either surgical option were comparable throughout apart from a higher rate of cerebrovascular complications in the arch group (7.6% vs. 21.9%) (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for ATAAD still confers a relatively high mortality. In our study, there was a higher stroke rate associated with patients who underwent arch replacements at the time of dissection despite them being younger. The choice of repair with or without arch replacement should be individualized to the patient and the severity of clinical status presentation.