Aortic Root Replacement Outcomes for Type A Dissection, 2005-2018

M. Yousuf Salmasi from Imperial College London published a retrospective clinical study comparing mid-term outcomes of two surgical techniques for treating type A aortic dissection. The analysis includes data from 252 patients, with 65 undergoing aortic root replacement, and compares composite valve grafts (CVG) and porcine aortic roots (PAR). The dataset covers procedures from 2005 to 2018 and reports on operative mortality, stroke, re-operation, length of stay, and five-year survival.

Use Cases

• Compare five-year survival rates between composite valve grafts and porcine aortic roots.
• Analyze the impact of surgical technique on post-operative aortic valve gradients.
• Model the relationship between surgical method and post-operative left ventricular dimensions.
• Investigate covariates like patient age and their association with surgical outcomes.

Strengths

• Includes data from 252 patients over a 13-year period (2005-2018).
• Provides specific statistical comparisons for key outcomes like mortality (OR 0.93) and aortic valve gradients (8.69 vs 15.45 mmHg).
• Reports on multiple follow-up time points, including 6 weeks and 1 year.

Limitations

• Column-level documentation is absent; field semantics must be inferred after download.
• Row count for the primary comparison dataset is unknown, which may limit suitability assessment.
• Data may reflect temporal and institutional bias inherent to a single-center registry.

Provenance

Source

Imperial College London

Collection Method

Retrospective analysis of a locally collated aortic dissection registry.

Time Range

2005-2018

Freshness

Last update date is unknown; freshness unverified.