Background: A paradox of lower morbidity and mortality in overweight or obese patients undergoing cardiac surgery has been described; however, knowledge about the influence of obesity in patients with acute Type A aortic dissection (AAD) is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of obesity on short- and long-term outcomes after surgical treatment for AAD. Methods: Between 01/2004 and 12/2022, 912 patients with a BMI of 18.5 or greater were operated on for AAD. Patients were grouped according to their BMI (normal weight: BMI 18.5–24.9, n = 332; overweight: BMI 25–29.9, n = 367; obesity class I: BMI 30–34.9, n = 133; obesity class II+: BMI ≥ 35, n = 67), and the obtained clinical and surgical data were compared. Results: Obese patients were younger at the time of AAD (p = 0.001) and demonstrated higher rates of typical cardiovascular comorbidities (arterial hypertension, p = 0.005; diabetes mellitus, p < 0.001). The most important preoperative parameters, as well as the surgical approach, were similar between all four groups. The occurrence of renal failure requiring dialysis was higher in patients with BMI ≥ 35 (p = 0.010), but the in-hospital (p = 0.461) and long-term survival (p = 0.894) showed no significant differences. Conclusions: There are no indications that the obesity paradox is applicable in the setting of AAD. Since obese patients are affected by AAD at a younger age, obesity might constitute a risk factor for AAD. However, obesity does not influence short- or long-term survival. Regardless of body weight, immediate surgical therapy remains the treatment of choice for AAD.

Background and Objectives: Acute type A aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening disease. No differences between men and women have been made in the treatment of AAD so far and knowledge about sex differences regarding long-term outcomes is limited. Materials and Methods: Between 01/2004 and 12/2021, 874 patients were operated on for AAD, including 313 (35.8%) women and 561 (64.2%) men. Clinical and surgical records, including long-term follow-up information, were obtained and analyzed retrospectively. To account for differences in the outcome determined by different preoperative life expectancies, a subgroup analysis for a set of patients matched according to their remaining life expectancy was performed. Results: At the time of AAD, women were older than men (69.1 ± 13.0 vs. 61.8 ± 13.3 years, p < 0.001) and had a shorter remaining statistical life expectancy (18.6 ± 10.8 vs. 21.4 ± 10.4 years, p < 0.001). Significantly more DeBakey type II AAD was found in women (37.1% vs. 25.7%, p < 0.001). Comorbidities and preoperative status at the time of presentation were similar in women and men. More hemiarch procedures (63.3% vs. 52.0%, p < 0.001) and less arch replacements (8.6% vs. 16.6%, p < 0.001) were performed in women, resulting in shorter cross-clamp times for women (92 ± 39 vs. 102 ± 49 min, p < 0.001). The in-hospital mortality was similar in women and men (11.5% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.618). Long-term survival was significantly shorter in women compared to men (9.8 [8.1–11.5] vs. 15.1 [11.9–18.4] years, p = 0.011). A matched subgroup analysis revealed that when comparing groups with a similar remaining life expectancy, the long-term survival showed no significant differences between women and men (9.8 [7.9–11.6] vs. 12.4 [10.1–14.7] years, p = 0.487). Conclusions: There are sex differences in AAD, with DeBakey type II dissection being more frequent in women. The seemingly worse long-term outcome can mostly be attributed to the shorter remaining statistical life expectancy at the time of presentation.

Introduction: The management of aortic dissection has evolved significantly over the decades, with the frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure emerging as a key technique for treating complex aortic pathologies. Recent practices involve deploying the FET prosthesis more proximally in the aorta (Zone 0) to reduce complications, leading to questions about its impact on long-term aortic remodeling compared to traditional Zone 2 deployment. Methods: This retrospective analysis utilized 3D segmentation software to assess the volumetric changes in aortic remodeling after acute Type A aortic dissections, comparing FET stent graft deployment in Zone 0 and Zone 2. The study included 27 patients operated on between 2020 and 2022, with volumetric measurements taken from postoperative and 6-month follow-up CT scans. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the differences in the aortic true lumen (TL) and the perfused false lumen (PFL) between the two groups. Results: Both Zone 0 and Zone 2 deployments resulted in significant true lumen (TL) increases (Z0 p = 0.001, Z2 p < 0.001) and perfused false lumen (PFL) decreases (Z0 p = 0.02, Z2 p = 0.04), with no significant differences in volumetric changes between the groups (p = 0.7 post op and p = 0.9 after 6 months). The distal anastomosis in Zone 0 did not compromise the aortic remodeling outcomes and was associated with reduced distal ischemia and cerebral perfusion times (p = 0.041). The angle measurements in Zone 0 did not show any significant changes after the 6-month control (p = 0.2). However, in Zone 2, a significant change was detected. (p = 0.022). The part comparison analyses did not indicate significant differences in aortic deviation between the groups (p = 0.62), suggesting comparable effectiveness in aortic remodeling. Conclusions: Performing the distal anastomosis more proximally in Zone 0 offers technical advantages without compromising the effectiveness of aortic remodeling compared to the traditional Zone 2 deployment. This finding supports the continued recommendation of Zone 0 deployment in the management of acute Type A aortic dissections, with ongoing studies being needed to confirm the long-term outcomes and survival benefits.

Background/Objectives: The frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique was introduced as a possible single-stage procedure for treating aortic arch pathologies. However, up to a third of patients are reported to need subsequent completion (extension). This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of early (within 30 days; EC group) versus late (>30 days; LC group) endovascular completion with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients treated with FET. Methods: A single-center, retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients for the period between June 2017 and December 2023 who underwent FET and received endovascular extension was conducted. Indications for endovascular extension were aneurysms of the descending aorta, aneurysmal progress, endoleak, malperfusion, distal stent-induced new entry (dSINE), and aortic rupture. Results: A total of 37 of 232 FET patients received endovascular extension (15.9%). Average age at the time of TEVAR was 63.3 ± 10.3 years. There was an increase in the maximum total aortic diameter post-FET from 40.8 ± 9 mm to 45.1 ± 14 mm prior to TEVAR. Only 14 patients (37.8%) had the desired complete occlusion of the false lumen or aneurysm prior to extension; 23 (62.2%) still had relevant perfusion of the false lumen or aneurysm. The EC and LC groups were defined by time between FET and TEVAR: a mean of 4.8 ± 5.2 days in the EC group and 18.4 ± 18 months in the LC group. The EC group had markedly more complex procedures, reflected in intensive care (10.7 ± 6.9 vs. 0.1 ± 0.3 days, p < 0.001) and hospitalization (22.4 ± 14.0 vs. 8.1 ± 5.6 days, p = 0.003) durations. There was one early death due to multiorgan failure in the EC group and there were none in the LC group. There were no major cardiac events in either group. In the EC group, seven patients (50%) suffered from postoperative respiratory failure and four (28.6%) developed acute kidney failure requiring dialysis. Only one patient in the LC group (4.3%) experienced complications. During follow-up, another three patients (21.4%) of the EC group died, but none of the LC group did. Post-extension aortic remodeling was similar in both groups, with complete occlusion achieved in 27 cases (72%) during early follow-up and increased to 90.6% after a mean of 22.0 ± 23.4 months. Conclusions: Following aortic arch repair using FET, there is still a need for second-stage repair in 16% of patients. Endovascular completion post-FET is safe and feasible with a technical success rate of 100%, but early completion is associated with greater morbidity and mortality. TEVAR extension surgery may be better delayed, if possible, until after recovery from the hybrid arch repair.

(1) Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently coexists with thoracic aortic disease and may increase the risk of adverse outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Whether routine preoperative coronary angiography (CAG) improves outcomes remains unclear. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 177 patients undergoing elective TEVAR between 2015 and 2025 with a median follow-up of 4.9 years. Two analyses were performed: patients who underwent preoperative CAG versus those who did not, and patients with versus without CAD. Survival was assessed using Kaplan–Meier analysis and overlap-weighted Cox regression. (3) Results: Preoperative CAG was performed in 94 patients (53.1%) and identified newly diagnosed or progressive CAD in 42 (44.7%). Overall, 24 patients (13.6%) underwent coronary revascularization before TEVAR. Patients with CAD were older and had a greater comorbidity burden. Despite these differences, preoperative CAG was not associated with differences in in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.159), major adverse cardiovascular events (11.3% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.754), or long-term survival (log-rank p = 0.10). Patients with CAD showed higher unadjusted long-term mortality than those without CAD (31.7% vs. 17.5%; log-rank p = 0.003). However, after overlap weighting, CAD was no longer significantly associated with mortality (adjusted HR 1.4, 95% CI 0.71–2.8). Among patients with angiographically verified coronary disease, preoperative revascularization before TEVAR was not associated with improved long-term survival (HR 2.20, 95% CI 0.69–6.98). (4) Conclusions: Preoperative CAG detects clinically relevant, often unrecognized CAD in a substantial proportion of TEVAR candidates and enables revascularization before surgery. Despite a higher coronary burden, patients who underwent CAG had outcomes comparable to those who did not, and the crude long-term survival disadvantage of CAD was largely explained by the accompanying systemic atherosclerotic burden. Routine preoperative coronary assessment appears justified in elective TEVAR.