Impact of redo sternotomy on proximal aortic repair: Does previous aortic repair affect outcomes?

Early surgical outcomes in the composite-valve root replacement with bioprosthesis after surgery for acute type A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of composite-valve root replacement with bioprosthesis (b-CVRR) after acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) repair.

METHODS

We included 41 patients who underwent b-CVRR after surgery for AAAD from 2007 to 2022. We excluded seven patients with VSRR, three with mechanical valve use, one with mycotic aneurysm, and one with cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

RESULTS

The overlapping surgical indications for b-CVRR were pseudoaneurysm in 21 patients (51.2%), severe AI in 19 (46.3%), re-dissection in 15 (36.6%), root dilatation (> 50 mm) in 12 (41.5%), and rupture in 3 (7.3%). The coronary artery reconstruction methods were bilateral Carrel patch in 13 patients (32%), Carrel patch with Piehler in 16 patients (38%), bilateral Piehler in six patients (15%), and Piehler with coronary artery bypass (CABG) in six patients (15%). Four patients who underwent the Carrel patch technique required additional intraoperative CABG. Three hospital mortality occurred (7.3%; myonephropathic metabolic syndrome, heart failure, bleeding from the thyroid carotid artery without injury). No thrombosis of the reconstructed site was observed with the Piehler procedure.

CONCLUSION

Surgical outcomes for patients treated with b-CVRR after AAAD repair were acceptable. Intraoperative coronary artery events occurred due to stenosis caused by traction on the reconstructed coronary artery due to adhesions.

Physician Modified Endograft for Ruptured Dissecting Aortic Arch Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) in elective settings has demonstrated successful clinical outcomes. However, life-threatening conditions such as rupture are more often managed with open surgical repair due to the high complexity of arch endovascular repair, lack of available off-the-shelf devices, and limited long-term data.

CASE SUMMARY

A 49-year-old female with a recent history of prior ascending aortic repair for Type A10 aortic dissection presented with chest pain and dyspnea. Chest computed tomography angiogram (CTA) revealed acute bilateral pulmonary emboli and a 6.2 cm post dissection aneurysm of the posterior aortic arch with the dissection extending to the right iliac artery. She was treated with thrombolysis and subsequently became hemodynamically unstable. Repeat CTA revealed a massive left hemithorax with concern for aortic arch rupture. Given significant cardiorespiratory compromise and recent open repair, she was considered unfit for redo open repair. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with a physician-modified endograft (PMEG) was planned. An Alpha Zenith endograft was modified adding an internal branch for the innominate artery and a fenestration for the left common carotid artery. The left subclavian artery was occluded with a microvascular plug and coil embolization up to the level of the vertebral artery. TEVAR PMEG extension to the celiac artery was performed followed by deployment of a Zenith dissection stent to the aortic bifurcation. Completion angiogram demonstrated successful aneurysm exclusion and patency of target vessels.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular treatment of ruptured TAA with PMEGs is feasible. This approach may be an alternative for unfit patients for open repair in emergent settings.

Ascending Aorta Anastomotic Aneurysm Exclusion with Double-Fenestrated PMEG after Open Repair

BACKGROUND

The objective of this case series is to investigate the outcomes of double-fenestrated physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) in patients with distal anastomotic aneurysms after open repair of the ascending aorta or proximal arch replacement.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with a distal anastomotic aneurysm after open ascending aorta surgery who underwent aortic arch repair with a homemade double-fenestrated stent-graft from 2017 to 2023 were reviewed. Study endpoints included technical success, 30-day, and long-term follow up analysis of mortality, morbidity, and reinterventions.

RESULTS

10 patients were treated with double-fenestrated PMEGs for anastomotic aneurysms after open surgery of the ascending aorta. Of these, 9 were male with a mean age of 58 years. Nine patients were initially treated for acute dissection, and 2 had mechanical aortic valves. The mean time between open surgery and the treatment of the pseudoaneurysm was 4.15 years. Technical success was 100%. The proximal landing zone was consistently in zone 0, and all endografts were deployed via femoral access. Early outcomes revealed one endoleak (type 1a), which was successfully treated by prompt reintervention. No deaths or strokes occurred during the early postoperative period. During long-term follow up (mean time 35 months), no endoleaks requiring intervention occurred, and there were no reports of stent fractures or migrations. No patient died from an aortic-related cause.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic arch repair with double-fenestrated PMEGs for distal anastomotic aneurysms after open surgery is feasible and represents a promising alternative in patients ineligible for redo 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.

The impact of reoperative surgery on aortic root replacement in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Reoperative sternotomy is associated with poor outcomes after cardiac surgery. We aimed to investigate the impact of reoperative sternotomy on the outcomes after aortic root replacement.

METHODS

All patients who underwent aortic root replacement from January 2011 to June 2020 were identified using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. We compared outcomes between patients who underwent first-time aortic root replacement with those with a history of sternotomy undergoing reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement using propensity score matching. Subgroup analysis was performed among the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group.

RESULTS

A total of 56,447 patients underwent aortic root replacement. Among them, 14,935 (26.5%) underwent reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement. The annual incidence of reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement increased from 542 in 2011 to 2300 in 2019. Aneurysm and dissection were more frequently observed in the first-time aortic root replacement group, whereas infective endocarditis was more common in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group. Propensity score matching yielded 9568 pairs in each group. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group (215 vs 179 minutes, standardized mean difference = 0.43). Operative mortality was higher in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group (10.8% vs 6.2%, standardized mean difference = 0.17). In the subgroup analysis, logistic regression demonstrated that individual patient repetition of (second or more resternotomy) surgery and annual institutional volume of aortic root replacement were independently associated with operative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement might have increased over time. Reoperative sternotomy is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality in aortic root replacement. Referral to high-volume aortic centers should be considered in patients undergoing reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement.

Reoperations on the ascending aorta and aortic arch: A retrospective series of 453 patients

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to analyze the outcomes of reoperative thoracic aortic surgery at our institution from January 1986 to December 2018 to identify specific risk factors for early and late mortality.

METHODS

Two groups of patients were identified: aortic root or ascending aorta repair (group 1: proximal repair, 218 patients, 48%) and arch surgery or descending thoracic aorta repair (group 2: distal repair, 235 patients, 52%). Primary end points were 30-day mortality, 10-year survival, and freedom from aortic reoperations.

RESULTS

The 30-day mortality (6.4% vs 8.1%) and in-hospital mortality (8.3% vs 11.9%) were similar (P > .05) in the 2 groups. Multivariable analysis identified female gender (odds ratio, 8.60, P < .01), endocarditis (odds ratio, 2.96, P = .04), and cardiopulmonary bypass time (odds ratio, 1.02, P < .01) as risk factors for 30-day mortality. Mean follow-up time was 163 months (confidence interval, 147-179). Long-term survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 91.2%, 79.4%, and 66.3% in the proximal repair group and 80.7%, 68.8%, the and 55.3% in distal repair group, respectively (P = .03). According to the indication, 1-, 5-, and 10-year survivals were 92.1%, 82.3%, and 68.8% in degenerative aneurysms; 82.7%, 72.4%, and 56.3% in residual dissections; 80.9%, 65.4%, and 50.3% in endocarditis and pseudoaneurysms; 69.2%, 52.7%, and 42.2% in acute type A aortic dissections, respectively (P < .01). Competing risk analysis showed a significantly different cumulative incidence of reoperation at 1, 5, and 10 years between the 2 groups: 0.50%, 0.50%, and 0.90%, respectively, for the proximal repair group, and 0.40%, 4.30%, and 7.70%, respectively, the for distal repair group (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, short- and long-term results of reoperative thoracic aortic surgery were satisfactory in chronic aneurysms but poor in aortic dissections, pseudoaneurysms, and active endocarditis. Reoperative aortic surgery carries a high risk, regardless of the anatomic extension of the procedure.

Risk factors and early outcomes of prolonged mechanical ventilation following redo aortic arch surgery: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Redo aortic arch surgery is complex and associated with higher risks and mortality. Prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) after cardiac surgery is linked to early adverse outcomes and increased costs.

OBJECTIVES

Identify specific risk factors and early complications associated with PMV following redo aortic arch surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective study at Fuwai Hospital involving 203 patients. Data on patient characteristics, intraoperative factors, and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients were included, with 42.4 % requiring PMV. PMV patients had longer ICU stays (P < 0.001), lower discharge ADL scores (P < 0.001), and higher hospitalization costs (P < 0.001). While there was no significant difference in-hospital mortality between the two groups, the long-term survival rate in the PMV group was lower than that in the non-PMV group (P = 0.029). Multivariate analysis identified longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (OR 1.008, 95% CI, 1.002 - 1.014, P = 0.006), elevated intraoperative red blood cell transfusion(OR 1.214, 95% CI, 1.057 - 1.393, P = 0.006), higher PEEP (OR 1.296, 95% CI 1.089 - 1.542, P = 0.003), and total arch replacement (OR 3.241, 95% CI 1.392 - 7.543, P = 0.006) as independent risk factors for PMV.

CONCLUSION

PMV following redo aortic arch surgery is linked to early adverse outcomes, increased healthcare costs, and reduced long-term survival, with longer cardiopulmonary bypass times, elevated intraoperative red blood cell transfusion, higher PEEP, and total arch replacement as independent risk factors.

Use of Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis to Rescue Inadvertent False Lumen Deployment of the Innominate Branch Stent During Physician-Modified Fenestrated-Branched Aortic Arch Repair

A 70-year-old male with a history of 3 prior median sternotomies and on anticoagulation presented with acute chest and back pain associated with a pseudoaneurysm of the ascending and aortic arch in the setting of residual dissection involving the innominate, proximal right carotid, and subclavian arteries. A physician-modified triple vessel fenestrated-branched arch endograft was deployed. The innominate branch stent was deployed from the right carotid cut down, while the left carotid and left subclavian branch stents were placed from a femoral approach. Postoperatively, the innominate branch was found to be deployed in the false lumen of the dissected native innominate artery, leading to continued pressurization of the pseudoaneurysm. This was rescued by placing a Gore Iliac Branch Endoprosthesis (IBE) into the innominate branch through a temporary conduit sewn to the right carotid artery with a right subclavian branch placed via a brachial artery cut down into the internal iliac gate. The use of IBE allowed branch stent extension past the dissected native vessels. The patient had an uneventful recovery without neurologic complications. At 3-month follow-up, the patient remains well with an excluded pseudoaneurysm, and patent bifurcated innominate, bilateral carotid, and subclavian artery branches. A Gore IBE can be utilized in a dissected innominate artery to create an innominate branch device during fenestrated-branched endovascular arch repair.

True redo-aortic root replacement versus root replacement after any previous surgery

Objective

The impact of previous aortic root replacement (True-Redo) versus any previous operation (Any-Redo) on outcomes after reoperative aortic root replacement (redo-ROOT) is largely unknown. In this first multi-institutional study, the clinical impact True-Redo versus Any-Redo in the setting of redo-ROOT was reviewed.

Methods

From 2004 to 2021, 822 patients underwent redo-ROOT at 2 major academic centers: 638 Any-Redo and 184 True-Redo. Matching based on preoperative demographics and concomitant operations resulted in 174 matched pairs. An independent risk factor analysis was performed to determine risk factors for early and late mortality.

Results

Patients in the True-Redo group were younger, at 49.9 ± 15.1 versus 55.3 ± 14.7 years, P < .001. Concomitant operations were largely similar between the 2 groups, P > .05. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time (P < .001) and aortic crossclamp time (P = .03) were longer for True-Redo group. In-hospital mortality was 13% (109) and was without significant difference between groups, P = .41. Ten-year survival was 78% versus 76% for True-Redo versus Any-Redo groups respectively, P = .7. Landmark survival analysis at 4 years' postoperatively on the matched groups found that patients in the True-Redo group had improved survival outcomes (P = .046). Risk factors of in-hospital mortality consisted of older age (P < .0001), lower ejection fraction (P = .02), and male patient (P = .0003).

Conclusions

Clinical outcomes following redo-ROOT are excellent. Performance of a True-Redo-ROOT does not result in worse in-hospital morbidity or mortality and has improved survival benefit at midterm follow-up when compared with patients in the Any-Redo group. The decision to perform a redo-ROOT must be taken seriously and must be individualized in a patient-specific manner for optimal outcomes.

Redo aortic surgery: Does one versus multiple affect outcomes?

Objective

Redo aortic surgery has a higher risk of morbidity and mortality because it is technically complex due to mediastinal adhesions, infection, and previously implanted prostheses. In this study, we sought to benchmark our single-center experience comparing outcomes in patients undergoing aortic surgery after 1 versus multiple previous cardiac operations.

Methods

Between 2004 and 2019, 429 patients underwent redo aortic surgery. They were classified as aortic surgery after 1 previous surgery (first redo surgery, n = 360) and aortic surgery after 2 or more (multiple) previous surgeries (multiple redo surgery, n = 69). Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival were compared, and risk factors for mortality were identified.

Results

Thirty-day mortality was lower in first redo surgery compared with multiple redo surgery (12.3% vs 21.7%, P = .03). Age, cardiopulmonary bypass time, intra-aortic balloon pump use, postoperative cerebrovascular accident, absence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, intra-aortic balloon pump, and multiple redo surgery were independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Long-term survival was similar at 15 years. Patients who received first redo surgery were older (57.9 ± 14.0 years vs 50.3 ± 15.8 years, P = .0001) and had a higher incidence of hypertension (84.7% vs 73.9%, P = .02), whereas patients who received multiple redo surgery had a higher incidence of cerebrovascular disease (31.9% vs 20.3%, P = .03). Aortic valve replacement was the most common previous operation with higher incidence in multiple redo surgery. Incidence of previous aortic surgery was similar. Cardiopulmonary bypass (246 ± 67.3 minutes vs 219.9 ± 57.5 minutes, P = .009) and crossclamp times (208.2 ± 51.8 vs 181.9 ± 50.8 minutes, P = .004) were longer in multiple redo surgery. Incidence of reentry injury and balloon pump insertion were similar. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use was higher in multiple redo surgery. Postoperative complications occurred at similar rates, except for higher incidence of dialysis in multiple redo surgery (14.5% vs 7.2%, P = .04).

Conclusions

Multiple redo aortic procedures have a higher morbidity and mortality compared with first redo aortic procedures, with linearly increasing short-term mortality risk but similar long-term survival with the number of redo procedures.

Case report: Unveiling the unforeseen: a catastrophic encounter of giant aortic aneurysm rupture during re-sternotomy in a patient with bicuspid aortic valve and previous surgical aortic valve replacement

Due to structural abnormalities in the leaflets, patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) may develop isolated aortic valve disease, such as aortic regurgitation, aortic stenosis, or a combination of both. In addition to valvular pathology, numerous studies have indicated that approximately 40% of BAV patients exhibit aortic pathologies characterized by aortic dilatation. According to guidelines for valvular diseases, patients with BAV who require surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and have a diameter of the aortic sinuses or ascending aorta ≥4.5 cm are recommended to undergo concomitant replacement of the aortic sinuses or ascending aorta. However, we encountered a case in 2020 involving a patient with severe aortic regurgitation due to BAV and an ascending aortic diameter of 4.2 cm. This patient underwent SAVR and ascending aortoplasty surgery at our center. Remarkably, three years postoperatively, the patient's aortic diameter rapidly expanded by nearly threefold, which also suggests the risk of encountering a giant aortic root aneurysm during reoperation. Unfortunately, a fatal rupture of a giant aortic root aneurysm was encountered during re-sternotomy. Fortunately, with adequate preoperative planning, we successfully managed to avert this perilous situation. The patient recovered without complications and was discharged on the 8th day. Individualized surgical plans were formulated based on a comprehensive evaluation of the perioperative conditions.

Outcomes of reoperative aortic root surgery

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to determine the impact of reoperative aortic root replacement on short-term outcomes and survival.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of aortic root operations from 2010 to 2018. All patients with a complete aortic root replacement were included, and patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacements were excluded. Patients were dichotomized by first-time sternotomy versus redo sternotomy, which was defined as having had a prior sternotomy for whatever reason. Within the redo sternotomy group, reoperative aortic root replacements were identified, being defined as a complete aortic root replacement in patients with a prior aortic root replacement; 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity matching was used to compare outcomes across groups. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were generated and compared using log-rank statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 893 patients undergoing complete ARR were identified, of whom 595 (67%) underwent first-time sternotomy and 298 (33%) underwent redo sternotomy. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar for the first-time and redo sternotomy groups, including operative mortality. Redo sternotomy was not associated with reduced survival after aortic root replacement compared with first-time sternotomy (P = .084), with 5-year survival of 73.7% for first-time sternotomy and 72.9% for redo sternotomy. In the redo sternotomy group (n = 298), 69 (23%) were reoperative aortic root replacements and 229 (77%) were first-time aortic root replacements. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar for the first-time and reoperative aortic root replacement groups, including operative mortality. Reoperative aortic root replacement was not associated with reduced survival, compared with first-time aortic root replacement (P = .870), with 5-year survival of 67.9% for first-time aortic root replacement and 72.1% for reoperative aortic root replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperative aortic root replacement can be performed safely and provides similar survival to first-time aortic root replacement.

The impact of prior cardiac surgery on patients undergoing surgical repair for acute type A aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of reoperative versus first-time sternotomy for emergent open repair of acute Type A aortic dissection (ATAAD).

METHODS

This was an observational study of consecutive aortic surgeries from 2007 to 2021. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed to assess the impact of reoperative versus first-time sternotomy upon survival after ATAAD repair.

RESULTS

A total of 601 patients with ATAAD were identified, of which 72 (12%) underwent reoperative sternotomy. The reoperative group had a higher prevalence of baseline comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and coronary artery disease. Central cannulation of the aorta was achieved at a similar rate across each group (81.9% vs. 81.5%, p = .923), and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was similar across each group (204 ± 84.8 vs. 203 ± 72.4 min, p = .923). Postoperative outcomes were similar across both groups, including in-hospital mortality, stroke, pulmonary complications, renal failure, and reexploration for excessive bleeding. Five-year survival was 74.5% (70.5, 78.3) for the first-time group and was 71.6% (60.0, 81.9) for the reoperative group. After multivariable Cox regression, reoperative sternotomy was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death compared to first-time sternotomy (hazards ratio: 0.90, 95% confidence interval: 0.56, 1.43, p = .642).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that re-sternotomy can be safely performed with similar outcomes as first-time sternotomy. Central initiation of CPB after sternal reentry limits CPB time and may therefore represent a protective strategy that enhances outcomes for patients presenting with ATAAD and prior cardiac surgery.

Open arch surgery in the redo setting: contemporary outcomes

BACKGROUND

Aortic arch reconstruction after prior cardiac surgery is technically complex, especially after proximal aortic surgery. While multiple surgical adaptations in the redo setting have been described, traditional open reconstruction remains the most common approach with significant variability in outcomes in prior reports. This study describes institutional adaptations to surgical technique and perioperative care and assesses operative and long-term outcomes after redo-aortic arch repair in the modern era.

METHODS

Patients undergoing hemi- or total arch reconstruction after prior cardiac surgery (2005-2022) were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Strategic adaptations in approach over the study interval included a shift towards Type II hybrid arch repair for patients with "mega-aorta," redo-cannulation of the axillary artery when necessary, and adoption of transfusion and early extubation protocols. Outcomes of interest included 30-day/in-hospital adverse events and actuarial long-term overall and aorta-specific survival.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 214 patients undergoing hemi-arch (N.=154, 72%) or total arch (N.=60, 28%) after prior cardiac surgery (50% prior proximal aortic surgery). Surgical indications included degenerative aneurysm (47%, N.=101), residual arch dissection after prior type A repair (29%, N.=61), acute or chronic type A dissection (18%, N.=39) or other (6%, N.=13). 30-day/in-hospital mortality was 6% (5% hemi-arch; 10% total arch) and stroke was 3% (3% hemi-arch; 2% total arch). At median follow-up of 56 months, overall 5- and 10-year survival was 76% and 58% (hemi-arch: 81%, 62%; total arch: 63%, 43%); aorta-specific survival was 91% and 90% (hemi-arch: 96%, 94%; total arch: 79%, 79%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this modern single-institution series, a systematic approach to redo-arch repair yields excellent operative outcomes and late aorta-specific survival. Reduced late overall survival reflects the comorbidity burden of this population. Open reconstruction continues to play an important role in reoperative arch repair in the modern era.

Anatomical analysis of the aortic arch and feasibility study of double and triple branched thoracic endografts in the treatment of isolated arch pathologies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients undergoing open arch repair who would be anatomically suitable for multi-branched endovascular arch repair.

METHODS

This study was a single-centre review of patients undergoing open arch repair between 2000 and 2020. Anatomical feasibility was determined by comparing arch measurements to the anatomical criteria of the Zenith® double and triple inner branched-arch endografts (Cook Medical) and the Relay® double arch branched device (Terumo-Aortic).

RESULTS

Ninety (90) patients were included in this study, with 43/90 presenting degenerative aneurysm. The distance between the sinotubular junction and the brachiocephalic trunk measured 114 ± 30 mm on the outer curvature, and the maximum diameter of the proximal landing zone (PLZ) was 41 ± 11mm. A total of 42/90 patients (47%) were anatomically suitable for at least 1 stent graft and 29/90 patients (32%) were eligible for a triple-branched endograft. The most important determinant factors of anatomical suitability were the PLZ diameter (Cramer's V = 0.743, P < 0.001) and length (Cramer's V = 0.777, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the proportion of patients who may be anatomically suitable for branched-arch repair remains limited. The PLZ dimensions tend to be the most important anatomical limitations and should receive more emphasis in the development of branched-arch devices.

Endovascular repair of ascending aortic diseases with custom-made endografts

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to report the mid-term results of ascending thoracic endovascular aortic repair using a custom-made device (CMD).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study performed at tertiary centres. Nine patients considered unfit for open surgery received elective total endovascular repair of the ascending aorta with a Relay® (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise; FL, USA) CMD: pseudoaneurysn (n = 5), localized dissection (n =3) and contained rupture (n = 1).

RESULTS

Primary clinical success was achieved in all patients with no major complications and no early conversion to open surgery. All patients were discharged home and independent: median length of stay was 7 days (interquartile range, 6-18). No patient was lost to follow-up at a median 26 months (interquartile range, 12-36). Three patients died 2, 6 and 24 months after intervention; 1 was aorta related (late aorto-atrial fistula due to infection that required open surgery). At the last follow-up available, no endoleaks, migrations, fractures or ruptures were observed in the remaining 6 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Ascending thoracic endovascular aortic repair with Terumo Aortic CMDs was technically feasible, effective and safe in very selected lesions. CMDs showed good ascending aorta conformability with different configurations and diameters, and satisfactory mid-term durability as shown by both structural integrity and aortic lesion exclusion.

Re-Operative Aortic Arch Surgery in a Contemporary Series

Re-operative aortic arch operations (REDO) following previous cardiac surgery are challenging procedures associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We investigated post-operative outcomes for patients undergoing REDO and identified risk-factors for mortality in a contemporary series. From 1/2005-6/2018, 365 consecutive patients at an academic center underwent REDO: 257 HEMIARCH and 108 COMPLETE arch (45 stage I elephant trunk, 63 total arch) replacements. Outcomes included mortality and major adverse events. Long-term survival was determined with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and risk-factors for mortality were assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Operative mortality for the entire cohort was 6.8%, and rates of stroke, cardiac arrest, and renal failure were 6.0%, 7.4%, and 10.4%. Compared to HEMIARCH, COMPLETE patients had an increased incidence of renal failure requiring dialysis (15.7% vs 8.2%, p = 0.031) and re-exploration for bleeding or delayed chest closure (19.4% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.051). Although operative mortality was similar in both cohorts, long-term follow-up mortality (38.0% vs 26.8%, p = 0.047) was higher among COMPLETE vs. HEMIARCH. Predictors of overall mortality among all-comers undergoing REDO included older age, low body surface area, endocarditis, ejection fraction <30%, emergent status of operation, extended cardiopulmonary bypass duration, intra-aortic balloon pump use, and a more extensive arch operation. Previous aortic surgery was not a risk-factor for mortality. Among all-comers undergoing REDO, survival was 81.4% at 1 year, 66.7% at 5 years, and 56.4% at 10 years of follow-up. While early postoperative outcomes are similar among HEMIARCH and COMPLETE, a more extensive arch-replacement is an independent risk-factor for overall mortality in REDO. Using appropriate clinical indications in the current era, REDO remains a viable option for selected patients.

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.

Managing Malperfusion Syndrome in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection With Previous Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute type A aortic dissection with a previous cardiac surgery (PCS) and malperfusion syndrome (MPS) are extremely difficult to manage and have poor outcomes.

METHODS

From 1996 to 2018, 668 patients underwent emergent open aortic repair or endovascular fenestration/stenting for MPS for an acute type A aortic dissection, including those with PCS (PCS, n = 64) and those without PCS (No-PCS, n = 604). The groups were further divided into PCS+MPS, PCS+No-MPS, No-PCS+MPS, and No-PCS+No-MPS.

RESULTS

Compared with the No-PCS group, the PCS group had significantly more coronary artery disease, acute renal failure, and mesenteric and renal MPS. Forty-two percent of patients with PCS underwent upfront endovascular fenestration/stenting for endovascular-amendable MPS. The in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with PCS+MPS (40%) compared with PCS+No-MPS (5.9%), No-PCS+MPS (30%), and No-PCS+No-MPS (6.7%). Multivariable logistic regression showed cardiogenic shock (odds ratio, 7.3) and MPS (odds ratio, 6.6) were risk factors for in-hospital mortality (P < .001). After recovering from MPS the PCS group (n = 54) had similar rates of postoperative complications, including 30-day mortality (7.4% vs 6.3%, P = .77), compared with the No-PCS group (n = 557). The 5-year survival was significantly lower in the PCS group compared with the No-PCS group (60% vs 72%, P = .004) and was lowest in those with PCS+MPS (46%). PCS was not a significant risk factor for in-hospital (odds ratio, 1.2; P = .63) or late (hazard ratio, 1.3; P = .27) mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of severe preoperative comorbidities and the complexity of open aortic repair, in acute type A aortic dissection patients with PCS and MPS, endovascular fenestration and stenting first with delayed redo sternotomy and central aortic repair was a valid approach.