AORTIC DISSECTION RESULTING FROM TEAR OF TRANSVERSE ARCH - IS CONCOMITANT ARCH REPAIR WARRANTED

Forty-seven patients with aortic dissection resulting from a primary tear located in the transverse aortic arch underwent surgical treatment. Twenty-six patients had acute type A, 7 had acute type B, 7 had chronic type A, and 7 had chronic type B aortic dissections. Of the 33 patients with acute dissections, 11 (7 acute type A and 4 acute type B) underwent concomitant arch repair with an operative (less-than-or-equal-to 30 days) mortality rate of 55% (35% to 73%, +/- 1 asymmetric 70% confidence limit) (2 of 7 acute type A and 4 of 4 acute type B). Concomitant arch repair was omitted in 22 patients with acute dissections (19 acute type A and 3 acute type B); the operative mortality rate was 41% (29% to 54%) (7 of 19 acute type A and 2 of 3 acute type B) (p = not significant versus arch repair). The overall survival rate for those with arch repair was 45% +/- 15% (+/- 1 standard error of the estimate) at 4 years, compared with 43% +/- 11% for patients without arch repair (p = not significant). Considering the type of dissection, the 4-year survival estimate for patients with acute type A dissections who underwent arch repair (5 hemiarch and 2 total arch) was 71% +/- 17% (versus 44% +/- 12% for acute type A patients without arch repair). There were no survivors among the 4 patients with acute type B dissections who had an arch repair (1 hemiarch and 3 total arch), whereas patients with acute type B dissections who did not undergo concomitant arch repair had a 4-year survival estimate of 33% +/- 27% (p = not significant versus arch repair). Four other patients with acute type B dissections resulting from an arch tear were managed medically and tended to have a slightly better prognosis (2-year survival estimate of 75% +/- 22% versus 14% +/- 13% for all surgically treated acute type B patients), but again this difference was not statistically significant. Multivariate analysis of the 47 surgical patients revealed that advanced age (p = 0.0008), preoperative dissection complications (p = 0.02), and other coexistent medical problems (p = 0.03) were the only significant, independent determinants of overall mortality. Initial arch repair was not a significant predictor. Nine percent (2/22) of patients with acute type A dissections who initially underwent isolated ascending aortic replacement required subsequent arch replacement; 1 died after reoperation. Although the historical data reported herein do not provide concrete evidence supporting or rejecting routine arch replacement when the intimal tear is located in the transverse arch, we believe the substantially lower risk today makes concomitant arch repair (i.e., hemiarch replacement) a reasonable option in selected, younger patients with acute type A dissections, on both theoretical and practical grounds. In most patients with acute type A dissections where the tear is in the ascending aorta or proximal arch, we currently advocate using an open technique (during a limited period of hypothermic circulatory arrest) to perform a more reliable and secure distal anastomosis, or concomitant hemiarch replacement, or both. When there is no alternative (e.g., arch rupture or leak) except simultaneous arch replacement, it is the only viable option, but will be associated with higher mortality rates. The dismal prognosis of the uncommon patients with acute type B dissections caused by an arch tear during this 20-year period indicates that improved surgical approaches are needed.