Different aortic arch surgery methods for type A aortic dissection: clinical outcomes and follow-up results.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes and follow-up results among 5 main aortic arch surgery methods for type A aortic dissection in a single centre.

Methods: From 2002 to 2018, 958 type A aortic dissection patients who received surgical repair were divided into 5 groups according to the arch surgery method: hemiarch replacement (n = 206), island arch replacement (n = 54), total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (n = 425), triple-branched stent (n = 39) and fenestrated stent (n = 234). The indications for the different arch methods were related to the patient's preoperative status, the location and extent of the dissection and the surgical ability of the surgeons. A comparative study was performed to identify the differences in the perioperative data, and the Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess the long-term survival and reintervention rates. Thirty matched surviving patients that were included in each group completed Computed tomography angiography to determine long-term reshaping effect.

Results: The 30-day mortality rate was 15.8%, and there was no difference among the 5 groups (P = 0.848). The follow-up survival rates were similar among the 5 groups (P = 0.130), and the same was true for patients without reintervention (P = 0.471). In the propensity matching study, patients with stents (frozen elephant trunk, triple-branched stent, fenestrated stent) had a slower aortic dilation rate and a higher ratio of thrombosis in the false lumen at the descending aortic and abdominal aortic levels than patients without stents.

Conclusions: No standard method is available for arch surgery, and indications and long-term effects should be identified with clinical data. In our experiences, simpler surgical procedures could reduce mortality in critically ill patients and stents in the distal aorta could improve long-term reshape effects.