Hemiarch Versus Arch Replacement in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Is the Occam’s Razor Principle Applicable?

Background and aim of the study: In patients with acute Type A aortic dissection (A-AAD) whether repair should be limited to ascending aorta/hemiarch replacement or extended to include the aortic arch is still debated. We have analyzed our experience to compare outcomes of patients with A-AAD treated with these 2 different surgical strategies. Methods: From 2006 to 2020, a total of 213 patients have undergone repair of A-AAD at our Center; in 163 of them ascending aorta/hemiarch replacement (Group 1) and in 75 ascending aorta and arch replacement (Group 2) were performed. The primary endpoint was early survival and secondary endpoints late survival, freedom from late complications and reoperations. Patients were compared according to era of operation: 2006 to 2013 (Era 1) and 2014 to 2020 (Era 2). Results: Overall hospital mortality was 12% and 5% in Group 1 and 2; mortality remained stable in Era 1 and 2 for Group 1 (15%), while it decreased from 8% to 1% in Group 2 patients (p = 0.24). Actuarial survival at 5 and 10 years is 72 +/- 4% and 49 +/- 5% in Group 1 and 77 +/- 6% and 66 +/- 9% in Group 2 (p = 0.073). Actuarial freedom from reoperation in the entire series is 94 +/- 2% and 92 +/- 3% at 5 and 10 years. Freedom from reoperation at 5 and 10 years is 92 +/- 2% and 89 +/- 3% in Group 1 and 98 +/- 1% at all intervals in Group 2 (p = 0.068). Conclusions: An aggressive approach to A-AAD provides superior long-term results without increasing mortality. Furthermore, arch replacement during A-AAD repair represents a more stable solution with lower incidence of late aortic-related complications. Immediate aortic arch replacement should be considered in the treatment of A-AAD especially in experienced centers.