In-hospital and mid-term outcomes of patients operated on for type A acute aortic dissection complicated by postoperative malperfusion

P. Nardi, D. Colella, M. Russo, G. Saitto, A. Scafuri, C. Bassano, A. Pellegrino, G. Ruvolo
{"title":"In-hospital and mid-term outcomes of patients operated on for type A acute aortic dissection complicated by postoperative malperfusion","authors":"P. Nardi, D. Colella, M. Russo, G. Saitto, A. Scafuri, C. Bassano, A. Pellegrino, G. Ruvolo","doi":"10.5455/aces.20160816012549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: To evaluate the effect of postoperative malperfusion (PM) on operative mortality and on late survival in patients who underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection in a referred center for aortic emergency surgery. Patients and Methods: From January 2005 to September 2015, 237 patients were referred for aortic emergency surgery at our center. We examined complete data available on 214 patients (mean age 62.5±12.6 years, 156 males). At presentation, various types of preoperative malperfusion (cerebral, renal, mesenteric) were observed in 119 patients (55.6%). Arterial access for cardiopulmonary bypass was via femoral artery (n = 99), via axillary artery (n = 99), or into the ascending aorta (n = 22). Aortic repair was performed using an open technique in 124 patients (58%). Results: Fifty-five patients (25.7%) presented PM; operative mortality was 29% (62/214): 47.3% in PM patients vs. 22.6% in non-PM patients (P 75 years at the time of operation (OR: 1.1, P = 0.0004) and renal PM (OR: 53.5, P = 0.0027). Five-year survival was 79±7% in PM vs. 94±3% in non-PM patients (P = 0.002). Independent predictors for reduced survival were age >75 years (OR: 375, P = 0.05) and renal PM (OR: 28.6, P = 0.01). All types of PM and the location of intimal tear distal to the ascending aorta were found as risk factors for survival in the univariate analysis only (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Surgery for acute aortic dissection is effective in reducing preoperative malperfusion by about 50%. Renal PM is associated with higher operative mortality, whereas all types of PM, in particular renal PM, negatively affected late survival. Surgical techniques, site of arterial cannulation, and more complex interventions requiring an open technique did not appear to be predictors of increased risk.","PeriodicalId":30641,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical and Experimental Surgery","volume":"6 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical and Experimental Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5455/aces.20160816012549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the effect of postoperative malperfusion (PM) on operative mortality and on late survival in patients who underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection in a referred center for aortic emergency surgery. Patients and Methods: From January 2005 to September 2015, 237 patients were referred for aortic emergency surgery at our center. We examined complete data available on 214 patients (mean age 62.5±12.6 years, 156 males). At presentation, various types of preoperative malperfusion (cerebral, renal, mesenteric) were observed in 119 patients (55.6%). Arterial access for cardiopulmonary bypass was via femoral artery (n = 99), via axillary artery (n = 99), or into the ascending aorta (n = 22). Aortic repair was performed using an open technique in 124 patients (58%). Results: Fifty-five patients (25.7%) presented PM; operative mortality was 29% (62/214): 47.3% in PM patients vs. 22.6% in non-PM patients (P 75 years at the time of operation (OR: 1.1, P = 0.0004) and renal PM (OR: 53.5, P = 0.0027). Five-year survival was 79±7% in PM vs. 94±3% in non-PM patients (P = 0.002). Independent predictors for reduced survival were age >75 years (OR: 375, P = 0.05) and renal PM (OR: 28.6, P = 0.01). All types of PM and the location of intimal tear distal to the ascending aorta were found as risk factors for survival in the univariate analysis only (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Surgery for acute aortic dissection is effective in reducing preoperative malperfusion by about 50%. Renal PM is associated with higher operative mortality, whereas all types of PM, in particular renal PM, negatively affected late survival. Surgical techniques, site of arterial cannulation, and more complex interventions requiring an open technique did not appear to be predictors of increased risk.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A型急性主动脉夹层合并术后灌注不良的住院及中期预后分析
目的:评价急性A型主动脉夹层患者术后灌注不良(PM)对手术死亡率和晚期生存率的影响。患者与方法:2005年1月至2015年9月,237例患者在我中心接受主动脉急诊手术。我们检查了214例患者的完整资料(平均年龄62.5±12.6岁,男性156例)。119例(55.6%)患者出现不同类型的术前灌注不良(脑、肾、肠系膜)。体外循环的动脉通路为经股动脉(n = 99)、经腋窝动脉(n = 99)或经升主动脉(n = 22)。124例(58%)患者采用开放技术进行主动脉修复。结果:55例(25.7%)出现PM;PM患者的手术死亡率为29% (62/214):PM患者为47.3%,非PM患者为22.6%(手术时P 75年(OR: 1.1, P = 0.0004)和肾脏PM (OR: 53.5, P = 0.0027)。PM患者的5年生存率为79±7%,非PM患者为94±3% (P = 0.002)。生存率降低的独立预测因子为:年龄0 ~ 75岁(OR: 375, P = 0.05)和肾PM (OR: 28.6, P = 0.01)。在单因素分析中,所有类型的PM和内膜撕裂位置在升主动脉远端被发现是生存的危险因素(P < 0.05)。结论:手术治疗急性主动脉夹层可有效降低术前灌注不良50%左右。肾性PM与较高的手术死亡率相关,而所有类型的PM,特别是肾性PM,对晚期生存有负面影响。手术技术、动脉插管的位置和需要开放技术的更复杂的干预措施似乎不是风险增加的预测因素。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lisfranc injury in a 14-year-old patient. A case report and literature review A comparative study of upper body strength training exercise vs. treadmill walking on patients with intermittent claudication Using walnut shell in the microdrilling training model Case report: Preoperative progressive pneumoperitoneum in giant inguinoscrotal hernia - Post-radiation pelvic sarcomas after radiotherapy treatment of prostate adenocarcinoma -
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1