Midterm Outcomes in Type A Aortic Dissection Repair With and Without Malperfusion in a Hybrid Operating Room

Abstract

Treatment approach to type A aortic dissection with malperfusion, immediate open aortic repair vs upfront endovascular treatment, remains controversial. From January 2017 to July 2021, 301 consecutive type A repairs were evaluated at our institution. Starting in 2019, all type A aortic dissections were performed in a fixed-fluoroscopy, hybrid operating room. Propensity score matching was used to control baseline patient characteristics between traditional and hybrid operating room approaches. There were 144 patients in the traditional group and 157 in the hybrid group. In the hybrid group, 41% (64/157) underwent intraoperative angiograms, and of those, 58% (37/64) received at least 1 endovascular intervention. Following propensity matching, 125 patients remained in each the traditional and hybrid groups. Thirty-day survival was significantly improved in the hybrid cohort at 96.7% (122/125) as compared to the traditional cohort at 87.2% (109/125) (P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in perioperative paralysis (1.6% vs 1.6%, P > 0.9), new hemodialysis (12% vs 9.6%, P = 0.5), fasciotomy (2.4% vs 5.6%, P = 0.20, and exploratory laparotomy (1.6% vs 4.8%, P = 0.3). The hybrid operating room approach to type A aortic dissection, provides the ability to immediately assess distal malperfusion and perform endovascular interventions at the time of open aortic repair, and is associated with significantly higher 30-day and 2-year survival when compared to a stepwise repair approach in a traditional operating room.