Rudolph, Linda

Abstract Background Valve-sparing aortic root replacement has increasingly been performed in Marfan patients. However, there is ongoing debate on whether the non-aneurysmal sized aortic arch should be prophylactically replaced during the index operation. The aim of our retrospective single-centre study was to investigate the long-term status of the aortic arch in these patients. Methods Between 1993 and 2021, a total of 723 patients underwent valve-sparing aortic root replacement with a straight tube graft (David I reimplantation) at our institution; 119 patients had confirmed Marfan disease. Of these 119 Marfan patients, 67 patients had isolated aortic root aneurysm with no aortic arch pathology. These 67 patients underwent isolated David I procedure in an elective setting (only aortic root and ascending aortic replacement) without any concomitant procedures and were included in the present study. Results This study includes 67 patients with Marfan syndrome who underwent isolated elective valve-sparing aortic root replacement. The median age of patients was 30 years (20-41), and 47 were male (70%). The cardiopulmonary time was 157.5 (145.8-178.3) min, and aortic clamp time was 117.0 ± 19.8 min. The in-hospital mortality and stroke rates were both 0%. Follow-up was 100% complete. Survival at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were 100%, 100%, 93%, 89%, and 85%, respectively. Freedom from aortic arch reoperation due to aneurysm at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years was 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 95%, respectively. In follow-up, no patient required aortic arch replacement due to aortic arch aneurysm. A total of 3 patients underwent aortic arch replacement for type B aortic dissection. Of these 3 patients, 1 had chronic type B dissection with aortic aneurysm, and 2 had acute type B dissection. Conclusions The long-term results after valve-sparing aortic root replacement with a straight tube graft (David I procedure) in Marfan patients are excellent. Our study shows that the risk for future aortic arch intervention after elective valve sparing aortic root replacement in Marfan patients is extremely low. Hence, our study supports the idea that concomitant prophylactic aortic arch replacement during elective valve sparing aortic root replacement in Marfan patients with non-aneurysmal aortic arch is not necessary.

Objective Acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) is a condition that affects both genders and requires urgent surgical intervention as non-operative treatment is often associated with a poor prognosis. Studies have proven that less aggressive surgical treatments influence the outcome for female patients in the fields of several diseases. The purpose of this study was to report and analyze our results in the selective cohort of female patients with AADA to detect differences in the treatment of this group of patients. Methods Between January 2000 and July 2018, 141 adult female patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD) underwent repair of the aorta in our department. A total of 75 patients received a proximal arch. replacement (group A), and 66 patients received a subtotal (replacement of the brachiocephalic trunk) and/or total arch. replacement with elephant trunk or frozen elephant trunk (group B). Results The median age in group A was 70.7 years (range 60.7–74.7 years) and in group B 66.3 years (range 55.6–71.3 years). Operation times were significantly longer in group B (total operation time: A = 286.9 min (range 225.0–341.0 min), B = 341 min (range 266.0–392 min), p = .003; cardiopulmonary bypass time: A = 189.0 min (range 139.0–138 min), B = 238 min (range 176.8–300.5 min), p < .001; circulatory arrest time: A = 27.0 min (range 21.0–37.0 min), B = 42.0 min (range 32.0–56.3 min), p < .001). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding 30-day mortality (A = 24% ( n = 18), B = 19.7% ( n = 13), p = .538) and rate of reoperation (A = 13.3% ( n = 10), B = 15.2% ( n = 10), p = .757) or the preoperative characteristics. Conclusion Our study showed no significant difference in mortality rate depending on the type of operation. Based on these results, a proximal arch. replacement should be considered as the first line of operation technique if the individual situation allows. For inexperienced clinics and surgeons in particular, we recommend limited aortic repair in patients with AADA. Finally, location of the intimal tear remains the essential factor for the evaluation of the surgical treat.