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/hem-iarch replacement (Group 1) and in 75 ascending aorta and arch replacement (Group 2) were per-formed. 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). Conclu-sions: 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.