Comparison of outcomes in DeBakey type I versus DeBakey type II aortic dissection: a 17-year single center experience.

Mona Salehi Ravesh, Mohamed Salem, Georg Lutter, Christine Friedrich, Veronika Walter, Thomas Puehler, Jochen Cremer, Assad Haneya
Author Information
  1. Mona Salehi Ravesh: Department of Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus, Kiel, Germany.
  2. Mohamed Salem: Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus, Kiel, Germany.
  3. Georg Lutter: Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus, Kiel, Germany.
  4. Christine Friedrich: Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus, Kiel, Germany.
  5. Veronika Walter: Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus, Kiel, Germany.
  6. Thomas Puehler: Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus, Kiel, Germany.
  7. Jochen Cremer: Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus, Kiel, Germany.
  8. Assad Haneya: Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus, Kiel, Germany.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is controversial if the type or the size of aortic dissection is associated with the mortality in patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD) type I or type II according to DeBakey. Due to the pronounced aortic pathology in DeBakey type I compared to DeBakey type II, it is to be expected, that the DeBakey type I is associated with a significant higher morbidity and mortality. But we hypothesize that the current advances in surgical techniques, circulatory management, and postoperative care improve the clinical outcome of patients with DeBakey type I and II. The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the effect of these parameters on surgical outcome in patients with DeBakey type I and type II in a large cohort study.
METHODS: From 2001 to 2019, 395 consecutive patients (34.2% female) underwent surgical aortic repair at our institution. Patients were retrospectively classified into 2 groups: patients with type 1 dissection (group 1: n=309, median age of 62.0 years) and patients with type 2 dissection (group 2: n=86, 67.5 years). Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier estimator. Risk factors were analyzed by logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: The patients in group 1 suffered significantly more often from coronary heart disease [43 (13.9%) 20 (23.3%), P=0.036]. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between both groups concerning preoperative risk factors. The median surgical duration (279 263 min, P=0.026) and the circulatory arrest time (35 27 min, P<0.001) in group 1 were significantly higher. In a significantly higher number of patients in group 1, the aortic arch was completely replaced (18.4% 1.2%, P<0.001) and a simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting [18 (5.8%) 11 (12.8%), P=0.028] was performed. The rate of re-thoracotomy [62 (20.1%) 9 (10.5%), P=0.040], of postoperative delirium [66 (21.4%) 9 (10.6%), P=0.024], and of tracheotomy [85 (27.5%) 14 (16.3%), P=0.034] were significantly higher in group 1. Thirty-day mortality was 15.7% and did not differ significantly between both groups (P=0.867), as well as the long-term survival rates (P=0.956).
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the pronounced aortic pathology in type I compared to type II, it is to be expected, that the type I is associated with a significant higher morbidity and mortality. DeBakey type I was an independent predictor for 30-day mortality in our study, however, based on our 17-year single center experience there was no difference between the long-term survival in both groups.

Keywords

References

  1. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Winter;32(4):617-629 [PMID: 32615305]
  2. Am J Cardiol. 2018 Aug 15;122(4):689-695 [PMID: 29970240]
  3. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007 Dec;84(6):1955-64; discussion 1955-64 [PMID: 18036916]
  4. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015 Sep;48(3):e51-2 [PMID: 26273068]
  5. JAMA. 2000 Feb 16;283(7):897-903 [PMID: 10685714]
  6. Ann Surg. 1991 Jul;214(1):31-41 [PMID: 2064469]
  7. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005 Jan;129(1):112-22 [PMID: 15632832]
  8. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000 Jul;70(1):3-8; discussion 8-9 [PMID: 10921673]
  9. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1965 Jan;49:130-49 [PMID: 14261867]
  10. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 Mar;2(2):175-80 [PMID: 23977579]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0typeDeBakeypatientsP=0aortic1IIgroupdissectionmortalityhighersurgicalsignificantlyassociatedsignificantoutcomestudy2groupslong-termsinglecenterDuepronouncedpathologycomparedexpectedmorbiditycirculatorypostoperativeretrospectively2%medianyears5factorscoronary203%min27P<00014%8%9105%survival17-yearexperienceBACKGROUND:controversialsizeacuteAADaccordinghypothesizecurrentadvancestechniquesmanagementcareimproveclinicalpurposeevaluateeffectparameterslargecohortMETHODS:20012019395consecutive34femaleunderwentrepairinstitutionPatientsclassifiedgroups:1:n=309age6202:n=8667SurvivalestimatedKaplan-MeierestimatorRiskanalyzedlogisticregressionanalysisRESULTS:sufferedoftenheartdisease[43139%23036]Otherwisedifferencesconcerningpreoperativeriskduration279263026arresttime35numberarchcompletelyreplaced18simultaneousarterybypassgrafting[181112028]performedratere-thoracotomy[621%040]delirium[66216%024]tracheotomy[851416034]Thirty-day157%differ867wellrates956CONCLUSIONS:independentpredictor30-dayhoweverbaseddifferenceComparisonoutcomesversusdissection:Aortic

Similar Articles

Cited By