Objective To analysis correlation factors for preoperative sudden death of patients with type A aortic dissection in order to determine clinical management strategy.?Methods?We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 52 patients with type A aortic dissection who were admitted in Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery of the Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School from January 2003 to January 2010. According to the presence of preoperative death, all the patients were divided into two groups, 9 patients in the preoperative sudden death （PSD）group including 7 males and 2 females with their mean age of 52.0±12.1 years；43 patients in the control group including 31 males and 12 females with their mean age of 51.5±10.9 years. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used for analysis of preoperative factors related to sudden death.?Results?Univariate analysis result showed 7 candidate variables：body mass index （BMI, Wald χ2=2.150, P=0.143）, time of onset （Wald χ2=2.711, P= 0.100）, total cholesterol （TC, Wald χ2=1.444, P=0.230）, low density lipoprotein cholesterol （L-C, Wald χ2=1.341, P=0.247）, aortic insufficiency （AI, Wald χ2=2.093, P=0.148）, aortic sinus involvement （Wald χ2=3.386, P=0.066）and false lumen thrombosis （Wald χ2=7.743, P=0.005）. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BMI （Wald χ2=4.215, P=0.040, OR=1.558）and aortic sinus involvement （Wald χ2=4.592, P=0.032, OR=171.166 ）were preoperative risk factors for sudden death, and thrombosed false lumen （Wald χ2=5.097, P=0.024, OR=0.011）was preoperative protective factor for sudden death.?Conclusion?Type A aortic dissection patients with large BMI and/or aortic sinus involvement should receive operation more urgently than others and patients with thrombosed false lumen may have relatively low risk of preoperative sudden death.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of patients receiving mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological prosthesis.MethodsThe clinical data of patients undergoing mitral valve replacement in our center between January 2005 and August 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with emergency, reoperation, bleeding or embolic events or incomplete clinical data were ruled out.ResultsTotally 569 patients were enrolled, including 325 with mechanical prosthesis (a mechanical prosthesis group, 111 males and 214 females with a mean age of 55.54±4.09 years) and 244 bioprosthesis (a bioprosthesis group, 90 males and 154 females with a mean age of 60.02±4.28 years). There was no significant difference in the in-hospital mortality between the two groups (P=0.250). The survival rate at postoperative 15 years of the bioprosthesis group was higher than that of mechanical prosthesis group (78.69% vs. 66.25%, χ2=8.844, P=0.003). No remarkable differences were found in prosthesis failure (P=0.183) and thromboembolism events (P=0.505) between the two groups. Bleeding occurred more frequently in the mechanical prosthesis group (P=0.040). After the propensity-score matched analysis based on the age, the survival rate was still higher in the bioprosthesis group than in the mechanical prosthesis group (P=0.032).ConclusionBiological prosthesis can be considered as the preferable choice in mitral valve replacement procedure in order to improve the long-term survival and decrease the frequent of bleeding events.