Comparison of surgical and conservative treatment outcomes for type a aortic dissection in elderly patients

Background

In recent years, surgical outcomes have improved, and positive reports on surgery for type A aortic dissection (AAD) in the elderly are increasing. However, the difference between surgical and conservative treatments in the elderly remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted this study to determine whether surgery should be performed for Stanford (AAD) in elderly patients.

Methods

Data of patients aged 80?years or older who were hospitalized for AAD from April 2014 to March 2016 were extracted from the Japanese national inpatient database. Outcome measures were all-cause in-hospital death, stroke, acute kidney injury and tracheotomy, and composite adverse events (consisting of all-cause in-hospital death, stroke, acute kidney injury, and tracheotomy), and we compared them between surgical and conservative treatments using propensity score matching.

Results

The study cohort included 3258 patients, with 845 matched pairs (1690 patients) in the propensity score matching. All-cause in-hospital death was significantly lower in the surgical treatment group than in the conservative treatment group before and after matching (15.6% vs. 51.1%, p?<?0.001; 16.7% vs. 31.6%, p?<?0.001, respectively); however, there was no significant difference in composite adverse events after matching (36.0%, conservative vs. 37.2%, surgical; p?=?0.65), and adjusted odds ratio was 1.06 and 95% confidence interval was 0.86–1.29 (p?=?0.61) with reference to conservative treatment.

Conclusions

All-cause in-hospital death among elderly patients with AAD was significantly lower in patients treated surgically than in those undergoing conservative treatment. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the event-free survival, which is important for the elderly. These findings may be used in the consideration of treatment course for elderly patients with AAD.