Abstract 751: Retrograde Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Are Outcomes Worse Than Classic Acute Aortic Dissection?
Introduction: Recent reports of retrograde acute type A aortic dissection (RTAAD) following thoracic aortic endovascular repair have been associated with poor outcomes. This raises concerns about outcomes with RTAAD in general. We report and compare outcomes of retrograde acute Type A aortic dissection repair with classic acute aortic dissection (CAAD).
Methods: Between 8/1991 and 5/2008, we repaired 322 patients with acute type A dissection. This cohort was divided into two groups: RTAAD Group (52 cases), and CAAD Group (270 cases). RTAAD was defined as the presence of a dissection tear originating distal to the arch as identified intra-operatively. Tears in the ascending aorta denoted dissection as classic. Repairs using circulatory arrest were similar between groups, p>0.33. Preoperative, operative, and post-operative variables were analyzed retrospectively.
Results: Retrograde type A aortic dissection occurred in 16.1% (52/322) of patients. RTAAD differed from CAAD in the median time from initial symptoms to operation (75+−87 hours vs. 47+−61 hours) and specific presenting conditions. (See Table 1⇓) Outcomes (stroke: RTAAD, 2.1% vs. CAAD, 3.6%, bleeding: 4% vs. 9%, myocardial infarction: 6% vs. 6%, and mortality: 11% vs. 18%) did not differ significantly between the groups, p>0.05.
Conclusions: RTAAD presented later for repair and less frequently with redo-sternotomy and aortic valvular insufficiency. Despite these differences, outcomes from surgical repair did not differ significantly. Acceptable outcomes may be achieved with timely intervention.