Back

Outcomes of Patients with Subacute/Chronic DeBakey Type I Aortic Dissection: A Multicenter Study

Chen, H.; Han, H.; Wang, X.; Yue, S.; Li, Y.; Yang, H.; Li, H.; Liu, G.; Zhu, M.; Huang, J.; Zhao, Q.; Liu, J.; Wu, H.; Zhu, J.; Jiang, W.; Xue, Y.; Li, H.; Zhang, H.

2026-01-06 surgery
10.64898/2026.01.05.26343491 medRxiv
Show abstract

BACKGROUNDThe optimal surgical strategy for subacute and chronic DeBakey type I aortic dissection remains controversial. This multicenter study compared early outcomes and long-term survival between total arch replacement (TAR) with a frozen elephant trunk (FET) and conventional non-FET repair. METHODSWe retrospectively analyzed 452 patients who underwent surgery for subacute or chronic DeBakey type I aortic dissection at seven high-volume aortic centers between 2015 and 2023. Of these, 320 patients received TAR+FET and 132 underwent non-FET procedures. Perioperative outcomes and long-term survival were assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and landmark analysis. RESULTSAfter IPTW adjustment, thirty-day mortality was higher in the FET group than in the non-FET group (6.2% vs. 2.0%, P=0.044). However, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two groups (log-rank P = 0.469). The landmark analysis showed no difference in all-cause mortality within the first six years, but mortality was significantly lower in the FET group thereafter (1.8% vs. 12.5%, P=0.007). CONCLUSIONSIn patients with subacute or chronic DeBakey type I dissection, TAR+FET is a feasible surgical method associated with increased early mortality, but potential late survival benefit compared with non-FET approaches. These findings warrant confirmation in prospective studies with extended follow-up.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.