• Eur J Cardiothorac Surg · May 1999

    Comparative Study Clinical Trial

    Conservative treatment of the aortic root in acute type A dissection.

    • U Niederhäuser, A Künzli, B Seifert, J Schmidli, M Lachat, G Zünd, P Vogt, and M Turina.
    • Clinic for Cardiovascular Surgery, City Hospital Triemli, Zurich, Switzerland.
    • Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999 May 1; 15 (5): 557-63.

    ObjectiveIn acute type A dissection long-term results of conservative aortic root surgery were compared with the outcome of primary valve and/or root replacement.MethodsBetween 1985 and 1995, 199 patients (mean age 59 years, 154 men) were operated on. The aortic root was involved in the dissection process and valve incompetence of varying degree was present without exception. Replacement of a proximal aortic segment was standard procedure in all patients. The aortic valve was preserved in 126 patients: commissural suture resuspension (12 patients), root reconstruction with GRF-glue (gelatine-resorcin-formaldehyde/glutaraldehyde-glue) (114 patients). Valve replacement was performed in 73 patients (50 composite grafts, 23 valve prostheses with separate supracoronary grafts). Preoperative risk factors (valve replacement vs. preservation): coronary artery disease (11 vs. 8%, NS), tamponade (18 vs. 17%, NS), unstable hemodynamics (22 vs. 15%, NS), renal failure (4 vs. 6%, NS), neurologic disorder (19 vs. 32%, NS).ResultsThe overall early mortality was 23.6% (47/199 patients) and increased after commissural suture resuspension compared with GRF-glue reconstruction (P = NS). Parameters of the early postoperative period did not differ between conservative treatment and root/valve replacement: low cardiac output, 34 versus 38% (P = NS); myocardial infarction, 10 versus 11% (P = NS); hemorrhage, 25 versus 23% (P = NS); duration of intensive care (P = NS). Survival was 61% after 8 years without difference between the two principal treatment groups (P = NS) and between the two conservative subgroups (P = NS). At 2 years, GRF-glue reconstruction had an increased freedom from reoperation on the aortic root (92 vs. 70%, P = 0.0253) and event free survival (77 vs. 41%, P = 0.0224) compared with suture resuspension. Commissural suture resuspension was an independent, significant predictor for reoperation (P = 0.0221, relative risk = 4.7130).ConclusionSurgery for acute type A dissection still carries a considerable early risk. Preservation of the aortic root is safe in the absence of Marfan or annuloaortic ectasia, but a certain incidence of reoperations on the aortic valve and the aortic root has to be accepted. Root reconstruction using GRF-glue is the method of choice and is superior to suture resuspension, with a significantly better reoperation-free and event-free survival.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…