Ascending aorta replacement vs. Total aortic arch replacement in the treatment of acute type A dissection: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a severe, rapidly progressing disease which typically requires patients to undergo emergency surgical intervention. Despite advancements in surgical procedures, still, ATAAD remains a surgical emergency associated with high mortality. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare whether either ascending aorta replacement (AR) or total aortic arch replacement (TR) leads to improved short- and long-term clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of PubMed, Embase, Science Direct, Web of Science, SciELO, BIOSIS, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were supplemented by searching through bibliographies of key articles. Thereafter, data on early and late prognostic factors were extracted. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies were performed to compare whether either AR or TR leads to a reduction in the risk of in-hospital and short-term mortality, postoperative complications, re-operation rate, and long-term mortality. RESULTS: A total of 15 cohort studies (n = 2822 patients with ATAAD; AR with HA, partial arch = 1911, TR = 911) were deemed eligible and included in the meta-analysis. Compared with TR, AR led to a significantly lower risk of in-hospital mortality (RR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.96), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (CPB, mean difference = -53.09; 95% CI: -56.68–-49.50), circulatory arrest time (CA, mean difference = -8.09; 95% CI: -9.04-7.15), and antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP, mean difference = -28.62; 95% CI: -30.23–-27.00). Differences in the incidence rates of neurological dysfunctions and renal dialysis were not significant. The pooled rate of aortic re-operation was lower in TR group (AR 7.6% vs. TR 5.3%), albeit not significantly (risk ratio = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.94-2.07; p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that AR is associated with a lower early mortality rate and shorter operative times overall. Nevertheless, the incidence of postoperative complications in patients undergoing AR is comparable to that of patients undergoing TR. Further prospective follow-up data needs to be collected and analyzed to discern whether there are statistically significant differences in the risks of re-operation and long-term mortality between AR and TR procedures.