Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Type A Aortic Dissection (type a aortic + dissection)
Selected AbstractsEmergency Ultrasound Diagnosis of Type A Aortic Dissection and Apical Pleural CapACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 4 2010Chameeka Barrett MD No abstract is available for this article. [source] Left Coronary Artery Compression Caused by a False Aneurysm Expansion after Perforation of Type A Aortic DissectionJOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, Issue 1 2010Jan Vojacek M.D., Ph.D. (J Card Surg 2010;25:72-73) [source] Spontaneous Resolution of Type A Aortic DissectionJOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, Issue 6 2005Omar Mangoush F.R.C.S. We also discuss the possible mechanism and the role of conservative management in very selected group of patients. [source] Emergency Bedside Ultrasound Diagnosis of Nontraumatic Cardiac Tamponade,A Case of Type A Aortic DissectionACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 9 2008Alisa K. Hayes MD No abstract is available for this article. [source] Long-Term Effectiveness of Operative Procedures for Stanford Type A Aortic DissectionsJOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, Issue 3 2004Rudolf Driever Methods: From 1990 to 1999, 50 patients (32 men (64.07%); 18 women, (36.0%); mean age 57.4 ± 11.1 years) underwent operation for ascending aortic dissection. Surgical strategies included aortic root replacement with a composite graft (21/50; 42.0%), valve replacement with supracoronary ascending aortic graft (3/50, 6%), and valve preservation or repair (26/50; 52.0%). Results: Overall hospital mortality rate was 18.0%. Follow-up was completed for 47 patients (94.0%) and ranged from 1 month to 10.5 years (mean 28.8 months). Actuarial survival for patients discharged from the hospital was 84% at 1 year, 75% at 5 years, and 66% at 10 years. There was no significant difference between the various procedures regarding mortality, neurological complications, long-term survival, and proximal reoperations. The ascending aorta alone was replaced in 8 of 50 patients (16%), ascending and hemiarch in 30 of 50 patients (60%), and arch and proximal descending aorta in 12 of 50 patients (24%). Hospital mortality (11.5%, 20.0%, and 16.7%, respectively; p > 0.05) and 5- and 10-year survival (p > 0.05) were not statistically dependent on the extension of the resection distally. Residual distal dissection was not associated with a decrease in late survival. With regard to emergency surgery (36/50) there was no significant difference in hospital mortality (p > 0.05) and 5-year survival (p > 0.05) between those who had undergone coronary angiography (19/36; 52.8%) on the day of surgery with those who had not (17/36; 47.2%). Conclusions: Preservation or repair of the aortic valve can be recommended in the majority of patients with type A dissection. Distal extension of the resection does not increase surgical risk. Residual distal dissection does not decrease late survival. Preoperative coronary angiography may not affect survival in patients undergoing emergency surgery. (J Card Surg 2004;19:240-245) [source] Aortic Root Replacement with Stentless Xenograft for Aortic DissectionARTIFICIAL ORGANS, Issue 12 2002Tetsuro Uchida Abstract: This paper reviewed aortic root replacement with a stentless xenograft for Stanford Type A aortic dissection. Total aortic arch replacement plus aortic root reconstruction with a stentless xenograft was conducted in 2 patients with acute aortic dissection. In another 2 patients, aortic root replacement with a bioprosthesis was performed for chronic redissection of the aortic root which might be associated with the previous use of gelatin-resorcin-formalin glue. Full root replacement using this device is safe, reliable, reproducible, and technically less demanding. This device also provides a radical option for acute aortic dissection even in patients requiring concomitant aortic arch and root replacement. [source] | ||||||||||