Risk factors and outcomes of prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time in surgery for adult congenital heart disease: a single-center study from a low-middle-income country

Total aortic arch debranching with antegrade Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) in acute non-A non-B aortic dissection

BACKGROUND

The surgical evaluation and management of non-A non-B aortic dissections, in the absence of ascending aortic involvement, remains a grey area. It is in these scenarios when thorough evaluation of patient/family history, clinical presentation, but also overall lifestyle, is of immense importance when determining an optimal intervention.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a 38-year-old patient with a physically demanding lifestyle as a professional wrestler, uncontrolled hypertension due to history of medical non-adherence, and family history of aortic dissection who presented with acute non-A non-B aortic dissection. He was spared a total arch replacement by undergoing a hybrid approach of complete aortic debranching with antegrade Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR). The patient was able to benefit from reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, avoidance of aortic cross clamp, circulatory arrest, and hypothermic circulation.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient's unique composition of a physically demanding lifestyle, personal history of medical non-adherence, family history of aortic dissection, and clinical presentation required a holistic approach to understanding an ideal intervention that would be best suited long-term. Due to this contextualization, the patient was able to be spared a total arch replacement, or suboptimal medical management, by instead undergoing a hybrid-approach with total aortic arch debranching with antegrade TEVAR.

Early Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Right Anterior Thoracotomy vs. Median Full Sternotomy in Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare the early postoperative outcomes of right anterior thoracotomy minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (RAT-MIAVR) surgery with those of median full sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MFS-AVR) approach with the goal of identifying potential benefits or drawbacks of each technique.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational, cohort study included 476 patients who underwent RAT-MIAVR or MFS-AVR in our hospital from January 2015 to January 2023. Of these, 107 patients (22.5%) underwent RAT-MIAVR, and 369 patients (77.5%) underwent MFS-AVR. Propensity score matching was used to minimize selection bias, resulting in 95 patients per group for analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, two groups were comparable in preoperative characteristics. RAT-MIAVR group showed longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (130.24 ± 31.15 vs. 117.75 ± 36.29 minutes, P=0.012), aortic cross-clamping time (76.44 ± 18.00 vs. 68.49 ± 19.64 minutes, P=0.004), and longer operative time than MFS-AVR group (358.47 ± 67.11 minutes vs. 322.42 ± 63.84 minutes, P=0.000). RAT-MIAVR was associated with decreased hospitalization time after surgery, lower postoperative blood loss and drainage fluid, a reduced incidence of mediastinitis, increased left ventricular ejection fraction, and lower pacemaker use compared to MFS-AVR. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of major complications and in-hospital mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RAT-MIAVR is a feasible and safe alternative procedure to MFS-AVR, with comparable in-hospital mortality and early follow-up. This minimally invasive approach may be a suitable option for patients requiring isolated aortic valve replacement.

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.