Images in anesthesia: transesophageal echocardiography during cesarean section in a marfan’s patient with aortic dissection

Anesthetic management for cesarean section in two parturient with ascending aortic aneurysm: a case-based discussion

BACKGROUND

The anesthetic management of parturients with ascending aortic aneurysm for cesarean section can be particularly challenging, primarily because of increased risk for aortic dissection or aneurysm rupture.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present some aspects of the anesthetic management of two parturients with ascending aortic aneurysm for cesarean sections; amongst, the use of remifentanil with its effects on patient and newborn. We emphasize the importance of a cardio-obstetric team in the context of preoperative planning of such patients. Also, we reviewed some literature on the anesthetic management with its effect on peri-operative hemodynamic stability.

CONCLUSION

Maintaining hemodynamic stability is paramount in the prevention of the rupture or dissection of ascending aortic aneurysm during labor of parturient.

Aortic dissection during pregnancy and postpartum

BACKGROUND

Patients with aortic dissection during pregnancy and postpartum period exhibit a high mortality. At present, a complete overview of aortic dissection during pregnancy and postpartum period is lacking. ​Methods: This systematic review included 80 reports published from 2000 to 2020, comprising a total study population of 103 patients with aortic dissection. ​Results: We found that Stanford Type A aortic dissection was more common in prepartum cases, especially in the third trimester, while postpartum cases of aortic dissection were more common in Stanford Type B. The most common risk factor was connective tissue disease, with no other known risk factors. The mode of delivery had no significant effect on the type of postpartum aortic dissection. Reduced maternal and fetal mortality was observed when patients with Stanford Type A aortic dissection occurring after 28 gestational weeks underwent cesarean section followed by aortic replacement. Patients with Stanford Type B aortic dissection were treated mainly with medication and/or endovascular repair. ​Conclusion: Contemporary management of patients during pregnancy and within 12 weeks postpartum requires multidisciplinary cooperation and includes serial, noninvasive imaging, biomarker testing, and genetic risk profiling for aortopathy. Early diagnosis and accurate treatment are essential to reduce maternal and fetal mortality.

Outcomes in pregnant women with acute aortic dissections: a review of the literature from 2003 to 2013

BACKGROUND

Acute aortic dissection in pregnant women is a rare but potentially life-threatening event. Our aim was to evaluate maternal and fetal outcomes of acute aortic dissection during pregnancy.

METHODS

We conducted a review of literature of the PubMed database to identify publications related to pregnant women with acute aortic dissections during the period 2003-2013: 59 articles were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients were included in the analyses. Stanford type A dissections were the most common form, accounting for 77% of all cases. The majority (78%) occurred in the third trimester and immediate postpartum period. Inherited connective tissue disorders were causative in 49% of patients. Maternal mortality was not statistical different between type A and type B dissections (21% vs. 23%), but fetal outcomes were worse in type B dissections (35% vs. 10.3%; P<0.05). Fetal mortality in type A dissections was dependent on the timing of aortic repair, with antepartum aortic repair associated with a higher mortality (36%).

CONCLUSION

Despite advances in diagnostic and surgical techniques, maternal and fetal mortalities in pregnant patients with aortic dissection remain high. Patients undergoing combined cesarean section with aortic repair had favorable fetal outcomes.

Aortic dissection during pregnancy: a difficult clinical scenario

Aortic dissection (AoD) during pregnancy is a rare but lethal condition and highlights the need for extensive elucidation. The aim of this study is to reveal the risk factors for AoD during pregnancy and to compare the 2 main risk factors, Marfan syndrome and pregnancy itself in the previously healthy woman. The pregnant patients developed AoD at 31.7 ± 7.6 weeks of gestation. It occurred much earlier in the Marfan patients than in the previously healthy women (30.7 ± 8.6 weeks of gestation vs 34.4 ± 4.4 weeks of gestation, P = 0.0263). In the Marfan patients, AoD developed in 3 (3.2%), 15 (15.8%), and 43 (46.3%) patients in the 3 trimesters, respectively, compared with 31 of the previously healthy women, and only in the third trimester. The neonates of the Marfan patients had better Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes, lower intubation rates, and fewer stays in the neonatal intensive care unit than those of the previously healthy women. Marfan syndrome and pregnancy itself in the previously healthy woman were the 2 main risk factors responsible for the occurrence of AoD during pregnancy. Marfan patients may develop AoD at an early age and an early stage of pregnancy, probably due to the preexisting weakened aortic wall. Better outcomes for the surviving neonates of Marfan patients compared with neonates of the previously healthy women might be the result of the poor condition of Marfan patients causing a higher death rate for those fetuses.

Severe heart disease complicating pregnancy does not preclude a favourable pregnancy outcome: 15 years' experience in a single centre

Heart disease (HD) in pregnancy remains a major cause of non-obstetric maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. This study describes the outcome in 164 pregnant women with HD (158 deliveries in women in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Classes 1 and 2; 17 in NYHA Classes 3 and 4) who received good antenatal care and benefitted from a specific protocol and experience of a dedicated staff. There were no maternal or neonatal deaths; 46 women were diagnosed peripartum. Based on a sub-division into NYHA categories, and when sub-divided by HD, there were no statistically significant differences between groups with regard to maternal age, gestational age at admission or at delivery, birth weight, 5 min Apgar scores, mode of delivery (caesarean delivery), senior obstetric/anaesthesiology staff in attendance or delivery during day/working hours. There was a higher incidence of pre-term deliveries in women with rheumatic heart disease and Marfan syndrome (p = 0.06) relative to others. Babies of women with coronary heart disease had prolonged postpartum course in the NICU (p = 0.0001) and longer total hospital stays for the mother. In conclusion, well-managed, motivated mothers with HD who benefit from comprehensive antenatal care, and are managed primarily by their obstetric and anaesthesia teams, can aspire to a good outcome for themselves and their babies.

Stanford type B aortic dissection associated with pregnancy in patients with Marfan syndrome-A case report and review of the literature

A 36-year-old female patient known to have Marfan syndrome (MFS) presented with Stanford type B aortic dissection (type B-AD) 3 days after delivery although she had taken oral β-blocker and underwent prophylactic cesarean section at 34 weeks when she showed 42 mm of the ascending aorta. She was successfully treated medically without further progression of the dissection. A review of the literature revealed an additional 19 patients with MFS who suffered from type B-AD associated with pregnancy. Of 20 patients, 1 (5%) died but the remaining 19 patients were successfully treated either medically (n = 9) or surgically (n = 10). Of 13 patients whose aortic diameter was known, 5 showed <40 mm of the ascending aorta. Pregnancy in MFS can be complicated by type B-AD with a peak around term delivery irrespective of the size of ascending aorta and even with β-blocker.

Pregnancy in Marfan syndrome: maternal and fetal risk and recommendations for patient assessment and management

Pregnancy in women with the Marfan syndrome (MFS) is associated with the potential for a catastrophic and even fatal acute aortic dissection and the risk of having a child who will inherit the syndrome. The approach to pregnancy in patients with MFS is therefore challenging and deserves special considerations. This article presents an extensive review of available clinical information and provides recommendations for the management of patients with MFS during pregnancy.

Peripartum anesthetic management of patients with aortic valve stenosis: a retrospective study and literature review

BACKGROUND

Anesthetic management of parturients with aortic stenosis is controversial. Early studies suggest maternal mortality was related to cardiac condition and anesthetic care. In this report, management of parturients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis in two institutions is compared, and published cases are reviewed.

METHODS

Peripartum anesthetic management of all parturients with moderate or severe aortic stenosis who gave birth between 1990 and 2005 at our institutions, is described. Patients with mild or non-valvular aortic stenosis were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 12 parturients, six with moderate and six with severe aortic stenosis. Two patients with moderate aortic stenosis were New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification II, the others were asymptomatic. Five patients with severe aortic stenosis were symptomatic (NYHA classification II or III). Two patients with moderate and three with severe aortic stenosis underwent cesarean delivery; epidural anesthesia was used for two. Two patients with moderate and all with serious aortic stenosis were observed postpartum for 24 to 48 h in a high-dependency unit. There were no severe maternal or neonatal complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Carefully titrated regional analgesia is usually well tolerated in patients undergoing vaginal or cesarean delivery even in the presence of severe aortic stenosis. Standard monitoring is usually adequate for vaginal delivery, but invasive monitoring may facilitate management in some patients. An arterial line allows close monitoring of systemic blood pressure. Facilities for close 24-48-h post-partum observation should be available. A multidisciplinary approach is needed.

Transesophageal echocardiography and noncardiac surgery

The use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for monitoring during cardiac and noncardiac surgery has increased exponentially over the past few decades. TEE has evolved from a diagnostic tool to a monitoring device and a procedural adjunct. The close proximity of the TEE transducer to the heart generates high-quality images of the intracardiac structures and their spatial orientation. The use of TEE in noncardiac and critical care settings is not well studied, and the evidence of the benefits of its use in these settings is lacking. Despite the widespread availability of TEE equipment in US hospitals, less than 30% of anesthesiologists are formally trained in the use of perioperative TEE. In this review, the safety and indications of TEE are reviewed and detailed analysis of the best available evidence in this regard is presented. Landmark trials evaluating the use of TEE and its therapeutic impact in noncardiac surgical setting are critically reviewed. This article details recommendations to familiarize anesthesiologists with TEE technology to exploit it to its fullest potential to achieve better patient monitoring standards and eventually improve outcome. Training of greater numbers of anesthesiologists in TEE is needed to increase awareness of the indications and contraindications. Until relatively inexpensive TEE equipment is available, the initial cost of equipment acquisition remains a significant prohibitive factor limiting its widespread use.