Revascularization‐first strategy versus central repair‐first strategy for acute type A aortic dissection complicated with mesenteric malperfusion syndrome: A meta‐analysis.

Objective: The optimal therapeutic strategy for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) accompanied by mesenteric malperfusion syndrome (mMPS) has not been fully elucidated. The intent of this meta‐analysis was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the revascularization‐first strategy among patients with ATAAD complicated with mMPS through comprehensive comparisons with the central repair‐first strategy. Methods: Studies relevant to the comparison of the outcomes of early reperfusion combined with delayed proximal aortic repair and initial central repair in the treatment of ATAAD complicated with mMPS, were systematacially searched using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase up to June 30, 2022. And the primary outcome was early mortality, with mesenteric complications, adverse aortic events and hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) time served as the secondary outcomes. Screening of the relevant studies, data extraction, and assessment of the included studies were conducted by two authors independently. Standard statistical procedures provided in Review Manager 5.3 were used to perform all statistical analyses. Results: Five studies comprising 72 patients in total were included into the quantitative synthesis. In‐hospital/30‐day mortality was significantly reduced in patients receiving the revascularization‐first strategy than in those with the central repair‐first strategy, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (p =.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22–0.95). The revascularization‐first strategy resulted in a lower incidence of mesenteric complications compared with the central repair‐first strategy, with a pooled RR of 0.15 (p =.0002, 95% CI: 0.05–0.41). Moreover, no significant difference was found in the comparison of the revascularization‐first strategy and central repair‐first strategy regarding adverse aortic events (p =.31, 95% CI: 0.44–12.78). Compared with central repair‐first, a longer HCA time was observed in revascularization‐first with mean difference of 9.91 (p =.02, 95% CI: 1.34–18.48). Conclusions: The revascularization‐first strategy presented a lower in‐hospital/30‐day mortality and mesenteric complications than the central repair‐first strategy without increasing the incidence of adverse aortic events. However, the revascularization‐first strategy indicated a longer HCA time than the central repair‐first strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Cardiac Surgery is the property of Hindawi Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)