Perioperative and Long-Term Outcomes of Acute Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection Repair in Octogenarians.

Q1 Medicine
Hannah Masraf, Manoraj Navaratnarajah, Laura Viola, Davorin Sef, Pietro G Malvindi, Szabolcs Miskolczi, Theodore Velissaris, Suvitesh Luthra
{"title":"Perioperative and Long-Term Outcomes of Acute Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection Repair in Octogenarians.","authors":"Hannah Masraf, Manoraj Navaratnarajah, Laura Viola, Davorin Sef, Pietro G Malvindi, Szabolcs Miskolczi, Theodore Velissaris, Suvitesh Luthra","doi":"10.3390/medsci12030045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aims of this study were to assess the perioperative morbidity, mortality and long-term survival of octogenarians undergoing acute type A aortic dissection repair (ATAAD), and to compare open and closed distal anastomosis techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a single-centre retrospective study (2007-2021). Open versus closed distal anastomosis were compared. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods were used to compare long-term survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty octogenarian patients were included (median age-82 years; closed distal-22; open distal-28). Median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 187 min (open distal vs. closed distal group; 219 min vs. 115.5 min, <i>p</i> < 0.01, respectively). Median cross-clamp time was 93 min (IQR; 76-130 min). Median circulatory arrest time was 26 min (IQR; 20-39 min) in the open-distal group. In-hospital mortality was 18% (open distal; 14.2% vs. closed distal; 22.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.44). Stroke was 26% (open distal; 28.6% vs. closed distal; 22.7%, <i>p</i> = 0.64). Median survival was 7.2 years (IQR; 4.5-11.6 years). Survival was comparable between open and closed distal groups (median 10.6 vs. 7.2 years, <i>p</i> = 0.35, respectively). Critical preoperative status (HR; 3.2, <i>p</i> = 0.03) and composite endpoint (renal replacement therapy, new neurological event, length of stay > 30 days or return to theatre; HR; 4.1, <i>p</i> = 0.02) predicted adverse survival. Open distal anastomosis did no impact survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ATAAD repair in selected octogenarians has acceptable short- and long-term survival. There is no significant difference between open versus closed distal anastomosis strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":74152,"journal":{"name":"Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)","volume":"12 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci12030045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The aims of this study were to assess the perioperative morbidity, mortality and long-term survival of octogenarians undergoing acute type A aortic dissection repair (ATAAD), and to compare open and closed distal anastomosis techniques.

Methods: This was a single-centre retrospective study (2007-2021). Open versus closed distal anastomosis were compared. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods were used to compare long-term survival.

Results: Fifty octogenarian patients were included (median age-82 years; closed distal-22; open distal-28). Median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 187 min (open distal vs. closed distal group; 219 min vs. 115.5 min, p < 0.01, respectively). Median cross-clamp time was 93 min (IQR; 76-130 min). Median circulatory arrest time was 26 min (IQR; 20-39 min) in the open-distal group. In-hospital mortality was 18% (open distal; 14.2% vs. closed distal; 22.7%, p = 0.44). Stroke was 26% (open distal; 28.6% vs. closed distal; 22.7%, p = 0.64). Median survival was 7.2 years (IQR; 4.5-11.6 years). Survival was comparable between open and closed distal groups (median 10.6 vs. 7.2 years, p = 0.35, respectively). Critical preoperative status (HR; 3.2, p = 0.03) and composite endpoint (renal replacement therapy, new neurological event, length of stay > 30 days or return to theatre; HR; 4.1, p = 0.02) predicted adverse survival. Open distal anastomosis did no impact survival.

Conclusions: ATAAD repair in selected octogenarians has acceptable short- and long-term survival. There is no significant difference between open versus closed distal anastomosis strategies.

八旬老人急性斯坦福 A 型主动脉夹层修复术的围手术期和长期疗效。
背景:本研究旨在评估接受急性A型主动脉夹层修补术(ATAAD)的八旬老人的围手术期发病率、死亡率和长期存活率,并比较开放式和闭合式远端吻合技术:这是一项单中心回顾性研究(2007-2021 年)。比较了开放式和闭合式远端吻合术。进行了单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析,以确定院内死亡率的独立预测因素。采用 Kaplan-Meier 和 Cox 比例危险度法比较长期生存率:共纳入50名八旬患者(中位年龄82岁;闭合式远端22人;开放式远端28人)。中位心肺旁路时间为 187 分钟(远端开放组与远端封闭组分别为 219 分钟和 115.5 分钟,P < 0.01)。交叉钳夹时间中位数为 93 分钟(IQR;76-130 分钟)。开放远端组的中位循环停止时间为 26 分钟(IQR;20-39 分钟)。院内死亡率为 18%(远端开放式:14.2% 对远端闭合式:22.7%,P = 0.44)。中风发生率为26%(开腹远端;28.6%对闭合远端;22.7%,P = 0.64)。中位生存期为 7.2 年(IQR;4.5-11.6 年)。开腹组和闭合远端组的生存期相当(中位生存期分别为 10.6 年和 7.2 年,P = 0.35)。危重的术前状态(HR;3.2,p = 0.03)和复合终点(肾替代治疗、新的神经事件、住院时间大于 30 天或重返手术室;HR;4.1,p = 0.02)预示着不良生存率。开放式远端吻合术对存活率没有影响:结论:对选定的八旬老人进行ATAAD修复术,其短期和长期存活率均可接受。结论:对选定的八旬老人进行ATAAD修复术,其短期和长期生存率均可接受。开放式远端吻合术与闭合式远端吻合术之间没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信