Distal aortic reintervention after surgery for acute DeBakey type I or II aortic dissection: open versus endovascular repair.

OBJECTIVES Aortic dissection DeBakey type I and II may require distal reinterventions after initial proximal repair. We evaluated outcomes following open versus endovascular approaches to distal aortic pathologies after surgery for acute dissection. METHODS One hundred and forty-one consecutive patients underwent 152 distal reinterventions after previous type I or II dissection repair [63 (first quartile, 55; third quartile, 72) years old; initially 86% DeBakey type I; 54% hemiarch, 39% isolated ascending, 7% total arch replacement] at two tertiary centres in the USA and Europe over the last 14 years. Among them, 56 and 85 required reintervention for the aortic arch and the descending aorta, respectively. The median follow-up was 2.1 (first quartile, 0.8; third quartile, 5.8) years (439 patient-years). RESULTS The median time between acute aortic dissection repair and descending aortic reintervention was longer in the open group (2.7 (first quartile, 0.8; third quartile, 6.7) vs 0.6 (first quartile, 0.1; third quartile, 3.5) years, P < 0.01). There was one irreversible spinal ischaemia in the open and one stroke in the endovascular group. Two patients in the open and none in the endovascular group required re-exploration for bleeding. Two open and 4 endovascular patients required more than 1 distal reintervention (6 vs 8%, P = 1). Descending aortic open-repair patients experienced higher in-hospital mortality (23 vs 0%, P < 0.01) and lower survival at 1 and 5 years (74 ± 8% vs 96 ± 3%, 65 ± 9% vs 92 ± 5%, P < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Endovascular intervention for descending aortic pathologies after DeBakey type I or II dissection surgical repair is associated with lower in-hospital mortality and better survival, and does not raise the likelihood of later reinterventions at the mid-term follow-up.