Elective primary aortic root replacement with and without hemiarch repair in patients with no previous cardiac surgery

Personalizing patient risk of a life-altering event: An application of machine learning to hemiarch surgery

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to assess a machine learning model's ability to predict the occurrence of life-altering events in hemiarch surgery and determine contributing patient characteristics and intraoperative factors.

METHODS

In total, 602 patients who underwent hemiarch replacement at a high-volume aortic center from 2009 to 2022 were included. Patients were randomly divided into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets with various eXtreme gradient boosting candidate models constructed to predict the risk of experiencing life-altering events, including stroke, mortality, or new renal replacement therapy requirement. A total of 64 input parameters from the index hospitalization were identified, including 24 demographic characteristics as well as 8 preoperative and 32 intraoperative variables. A SHapley Additive exPlanation beeswarm plot was generated to identify and interpret the impact of individual features on the predictions of the final model.

RESULTS

A life-altering event was noted in 15% (90/602) of patients who underwent hemiarch replacement, including urgent/emergency cases and dissections. The final eXtreme Gradient Boosting model demonstrated a cross-validation accuracy of 88% on the testing set and was well calibrated as evidenced by a low Brier score of 0.12. The best performing model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76 and an area under the precision recall curve of 0.55. The SHapley Additive exPlanation beeswarm plot provided insights into key features that significantly influenced model prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

Machine learning demonstrated superior accuracy in predicting hemiarch patients who would experience a life-altering event. This model may help to guide patients and clinicians in stratifying risk on an individual basis, which may in turn influence clinical decision-making.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Aortic Arch-Clamping Technique in Hemiarch Replacement Without Circulatory Arrest

The open anastomosis technique has become more popular since it was first used in hemiarch replacement; however, hypothermic circulatory arrest is unavoidable. This institution performed a novel surgical technique called the arch-clamping technique. It has been used in the treatment of patients with ascending aortic aneurysm extending to the proximal aortic arch and avoids the use of hypothermic circulatory arrest. Thirty patients had a hemiarch replacement with the arch-clamping technique from 2021 to 2022; all of them were discharged uneventfully.

Outcomes of Reoperative Aortic Root Replacement After Previous Acute Type A Dissection Repair

Limited aortic root repair for acute type A dissection is associated with greater risk of proximal reoperations compared to full aortic root replacement. Surgical outcomes for patients undergoing reoperative root replacement after previous dissection repair are unknown. This study seeks to determine outcomes for these patients to further inform the debate surrounding optimal upfront management of the aortic root in acute dissection. Retrospective record review of all patients who underwent full aortic root replacement after a previous type A dissection repair operation at a tertiary academic referral center from 2004-2020 was performed. Among 57 cases of reoperative root replacement after type A repair, 35 cases included concomitant aortic arch replacements, and 21 cases involved coronary reconstruction (unilateral or bilateral modified Cabrol grafts). There were 3 acute postoperative strokes and 4 operative mortalities (composite 30-day and in-hospital deaths, 7.0%). Mid-term outcomes were equivalent for patients who required arch replacement compared to isolated proximal repairs (81.8% vs 80.6% estimated 5-year survival, median follow-up 5.53 years. Reoperative root replacement after index type A dissection repairs, including those with concomitant aortic arch replacement and/or coronary reconstruction is achievable with acceptable outcomes at an experienced aortic center.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Extent of aortic replacement and operative outcome in open proximal thoracic aortic aneurysm repair

Objectives

There are few data to delineate the risk differences among open aortic procedures. We aimed to investigate the influence of the procedural types on the outcomes of proximal thoracic aortic aneurysm repair.

Methods

Among 1900 patients who underwent aortic replacement in our institution between 2005 and 2019, 1132 patients with aortic aneurysm who underwent a graft replacement of proximal thoracic aorta were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the extent of the aortic replacement: isolated ascending aortic replacement (n = 52); ascending aortic replacement with distal extension with hemiarch, partial arch, or total arch replacement (n = 126); ascending aortic replacement with proximal extension with aortic valve or root replacement (n = 620); and ascending aortic replacement with distal and proximal extension (n = 334). "Eventful recovery," defined as occurrence of any key complications, was used as the primary end point. Odds ratios for inability to achieve uneventful recovery in each procedure were calculated using ascending aortic replacement as a reference.

Results

Overall, in-hospital mortality and stroke occurred in 16 patients (1.4%) and 24 patients (2.1%). Eventful recovery was observed in 19.7% of patients: 11.5% in those with ascending aortic replacement, 36.5% in those with partial arch or total arch replacement, 16.6% in those with proximal extension with aortic valve or root replacement, and 20.4% in those with distal and proximal extension (P < .001). With ascending aortic replacement as the reference, a multivariable logistic regression revealed partial arch or total arch replacement (odds ratio, 10.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-189.5) was an independent risk factor of inability to achieve uneventful recovery.

Conclusions

Open proximal aneurysm repair in the contemporary era resulted in satisfactory in-hospital outcomes. Distal extension was associated with a higher risk for postoperative complications.

Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta: the last frontier

Different pathologies of the ascending aorta (AA), including aneurysms, acute and chronic dissections, and pseudoaneurysms, have been treated with open surgical repair with very good results, especially at aortic centers of excellence. There is, however, a subset of patients for whom open surgery is considered to pose high or prohibitive risk. These patients can benefit from a less invasive approach with catheters and wires, percutaneous techniques and stent grafts. However, the existing technology was developed to treat descending thoracic aortic pathologies; it is not approved for use in the AA by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The devices used for the descending thoracic aorta (DTA) have certain size and design limitations that make their application to the AA cumbersome at times. As a result, custom-made endografts have been used to treat pathologies in the AA, although their use is feasible only in elective procedures. In addition, the AA has specific anatomic and physiologic characteristics that raise concerns about the long-term durability of the current technology. In this review, we outline the limitations, challenges and current status of endovascular technology to treat pathologies of the AA.

Proximal aortic repair in asymptomatic patients

Objective

Current guidelines for elective proximal aortic repair are applicable to elective first-time procedures in asymptomatic patients without other primary indications or connective tissue disorders and with specified aortic diameter or growth rate. The objective was to characterize the surgical outcomes in this narrowly defined patient-population.

Methods

Guideline-compliant patients were identified from a recent (2014-2019) single unit consecutive surgical cohort (n = 935) by excluding total arch replacements, redos, acute and symptomatic patients, and genetic syndromes. Remaining patients were included regardless of surgical procedure performed. Early (30-day or in-hospital) and 1-year mortality were primary outcome measures. Major complications (stroke, severe renal or respiratory insufficiency, postcardiotomy shock, deep sternal wound infection, permanent pacemaker, and re-exploration) up to 1 year postoperatively were secondary outcome measures.

Results

In the resulting study population (n = 262), median age was 63 (interquartile range, 52-71) years, and median surgical risk (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II) was 3.2% (2.0%-4.4%). Early mortality was 2 of 262 (0.76%) without additional deaths up to 1-year postoperatively. The occurrence of major complications was low: stroke, 2 (0.76%); renal insufficiency, 2 (0.76%); respiratory insufficiency, 1 (0.38%); postcardiotomy shock, 1 (0.38%); deep sternal wound infection, 0; permanent pacemaker, 3 (1.1%); and re-exploration, 20 (7.6%), all occurring in the immediate (30-day) postoperative period and without additional events up to 1 year postoperatively.

Conclusions

In this recent cohort including the target population referred to by and managed in accordance with current guidelines, mortality and major complications were exceptionally infrequent. Guidelines should adequately weigh risks of conservative management against current surgical outcomes.

Does adding an aortic root replacement or sinus repair during arch repair increase postoperative mortality? Evidence from the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative

 

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the addition of an aortic root replacement or sinus repair on mortality and morbidity during aortic arch repair.

METHODS

A total of 2472 patients underwent proximal or total aortic arch repair with hypothermic circulatory arrest between 2002 and 2018 at 12 centres. Multivariable logistic regressions (MV) and propensity score (PS) with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1099 (44.5%) patients had additional aortic root replacement (n = 934) or sinus repair (n = 165). Those with aortic root interventions were younger (61 ± 13 vs 64 ± 13 years, P < 0.001) and had less females (23% vs 35%, P < 0.001), less dissection (31% vs 36%, P = 0.004), less urgent cases (35% vs 39%, P = 0.047), more connective tissue disease (7% vs 3%, P < 0.001) and less total arch replacements (14% vs 22%, P < 0.001). On adjusted analyses, the addition of aortic root procedure was associated with increased mortality [MV: odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.92; PS-IPTW: risk increased by 3.7%, 95% CI 1.2-6.3%, P = 0.004]. Reoperation for bleeding was also increased with the addition of aortic root intervention (MV: OR 1.48, 95% 1.10-1.99; PS-IPTW: risk increased by 3.2%, 95% CI 0.8-5.6%, P = 0.009). The risks of stroke and dialysis-dependent renal failure were similar. When looking only at non-elective cases, the increased risk of mortality was more pronounced (MV: OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.11-2.32, P = 0.013; PS-IPTW: risk increased by 6.8%, 95 CI 1.7-11.8%, P = 0.008, and a number need to harm of 15 patients to cause 1 additional death).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of aortic root replacement or sinus repair during proximal or total aortic arch repair seems to increase postoperative mortality only in non-elective cases.

Outcome of reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement after prior aortic valve replacement

Background

There are limited data regarding the clinical outcomes of reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement after prior aortic valve replacement (AVR). We aimed to analyze outcomes of reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement after prior AVR.

Methods

Eighty patients with prior AVR underwent reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement in our hospital. The indications were root or ascending aortic aneurysm in 36 patients, root or ascending aortic dissection in 37, root false aneurysm in 2, prosthesis valve endocarditis (PVE) with root abscess in 2, Behçet’s disease (BD) with root destruction in 3 patients. An elective surgery was performed in 63 patients and an emergent surgery in 17. The survival and freedom from aortic events during the follow-up were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier survival curve and the log-rank test.

Results

The operative techniques included ascending aorta replacement in 14 patients, ascending aorta replacement with AVR in 3, prosthesis-sparing root replacement (PSRR) in 35, Bentall procedure in 24, and Cabrol procedure in 4 patients. Operative mortality was 1.3% (1/80). A composite of adverse events occurred in 5 patients, including 1 operative death, 2 stroke and 3 renal failure necessitating hemodialysis. The mean follow-up was 35.5±22.1 months. Five late deaths occurred. The Kaplan-Meier survival at 1 year, 3 years and 6 years were 97.5%, 91.1% and 84.1%, respectively. Aortic events developed in 3 patients. The freedom from aortic events at 1-year, 3-year, and 6-year were 100%, 96.3% and 88.9%, respectively. There were no differences in survival and freedom from aortic events between the elective group and the emergent group.

Conclusions

Reoperative aortic root or ascending aorta replacement after prior AVR could be performed to treat the root or ascending pathologies after AVR, with satisfactory early and midterm outcomes.

Propensity score analysis in patients with and without previous isolated coronary artery bypass grafting who require proximal aortic and arch surgery

OBJECTIVE

The risk posed by previous isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients who require proximal aortic or aortic arch surgery is unclear. We compared outcomes of ascending aortic and arch procedures in patients with and without previous CABG.

METHODS

Using propensity scores, we created 2 matched groups of patients who underwent proximal aortic surgery, including total arch repairs, at our institution: 126 patients who underwent isolated CABG before the index operation and 126 without previous CABG. Forty-four percent of aortic operations were emergency procedures. Eighty-six patients had a patent previous left internal mammary graft. We compared outcomes between the 2 groups and calculated Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

The following outcomes were recorded for the patients with previous isolated CABG versus no CABG: operative mortality, 15.9% versus 11.1% (P = .3); 30-day mortality, 13.5% versus 7.1% (P = .1); persistent stroke, 6.3% versus 4.8% (P = .6); and renal failure necessitating hemodialysis at discharge, 7.9% versus 4.0% (P = .2). Previous CABG did not independently predict any adverse outcome, even though patients who underwent previous CABG more frequently needed intra-aortic balloon support (P < .01). The P value for the overall intergroup difference in long-term survival was .06.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the largest studies yet reported to examine the impact of previous isolated CABG on proximal aortic or arch surgery outcomes. Although these results may be specific to aortic centers of excellence, in this complicated patient cohort, previous isolated CABG did not independently predict any adverse outcome. These results could serve as a benchmark for assessing future endovascular therapies.