loading page

Does adding a Root Replacement in Type A Aortic Dissection Repair Provide Better Outcomes?
  • +1
  • Wahaj Munir,
  • Amer Harky,
  • Mohamad Bashir,
  • Benjamin Adams
Wahaj Munir
Queen Mary University of London Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry
Author Profile
Amer Harky
Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Author Profile
Mohamad Bashir
Royal Blackburn Teaching Hospital
Author Profile
Benjamin Adams
Saint Bartholomew's Hospital
Author Profile

Abstract

Background: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD), is a surgical emergency often requiring intervention on the aortic root. There is much controversy regarding root management; aggressively pursuing a root replacement, versus more conservative approaches to preserve native structures. Methods: Electronic database search we performed through PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, google scholar and Cochrane identifying studies that reported on outcomes of surgical repair of ATAAD through either root preservation or replacement. The identified articles focused on short- and long-term mortalities, and rates of re-operation on the aortic root. Results: There remains controversy on replacing or preserving aortic root in ATAAD. Current evidence supports practice of both trends following an extensive decision-making framework, with conflicting series suggesting favourable results with both procedures as the approach that best defines higher survival rates and lower perioperative complications. Yet, the decision to perform either approach remains surgeon decision and bound to the extent of the dissection and tear entries in strong correlation with status of the aortic valve and involvement of coronaries in the dissection. Conclusions: There exists much controversy regarding fate of the aortic root in ATAAD. There are conflicting studies for impact of root replacement on mortality, whilst some study’s report no significant results at all. There is strong evidence regarding risk of re-operation being greater when root is not replaced. Majority of these studies are limited by the single centred, retrospective nature of these small sample sized cohorts, further hindered by potential of treatment bias.

Peer review status:Published

30 Aug 2020Submitted to Journal of Cardiac Surgery
31 Aug 2020Assigned to Editor
31 Aug 2020Submission Checks Completed
31 Aug 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
03 Sep 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
03 Sep 2020Editorial Decision: Accept
16 Sep 2020Published in Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 10.1111/jocs.15028