Sleep disorders in Multiple System Atrophy: a longitudinal study

Introduction: A higher frequency of sleep and breathing disorders in Multiple System Atrophy (MSA) populations is documented in literature. The analysis of disease progression and prognosis in patients with sleep and breathing disorders could shed light on specific neuropathology and pathophysiology of MSA. Objective: To characterize sleep disorders and their longitudinal modifications during disease course in MSA patients, and to determine their prognostic value. Methods: This is a retrospective and prospective cohort study including 182 MSA patients (58.8% males). Type of onset was defined by the first reported motor or autonomic symptom/sign related to MSA. The occurrence of symptoms/signs and milestones of disease progression and their latency were collected. REM sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) and stridor were video-polysomnography (VPSG)-confirmed. VPSG recordings were analysed in a standardized fashion during the disease course. Survival data were based on time to death from the first symptom of disease. Results: Isolated RBD represented the first MSA symptom in 30% of patients, preceding disease onset according to international criteria with a median of 3(1–5) years. Patients developing early stridor or presenting with RBD at disease onset showed a more rapid and severe disease progression. These features had independent negative prognostic value for survival. Sleep architecture was characterized by peculiar features which could represent negative markers in MSA prognosis. Patients with stridor treated with tracheostomy showed a reduced risk of death. Conclusions: This is one of the first studies focusing on longitudinal progression of sleep in MSA. Sleep disorders are key features of disease, playing a role in presentation, prognosis and progression. In our MSA cohort, RBD represented the most frequent mode of disease presentation. Moreover, some specific clinical and instrumental sleep features could represent a hallmark of MSA and could be involved in prognosis and, in particular, in sudden death and death during sleep.

The frozen elephant trunk technique for the treatment of complex aortic arch and descending thoracic aorta pathologies: long term outcomes and distal reintervention

Background: The frozen elephant trunk(FET) technique is one of the last evolution in the treatment of complex pathologies of the aortic arch and the descending thoracic aorta.Materials and methods: Between January 2007 and March 2021, a total of 396 patients underwent total aortic arch replacements with the FET technique in our centre.The main indications were thoracic aortic aneurysm(n=104,28.2%), chronic aortic dissection(n=224,53.4%) and acute aortic dissection(n=68, 18.4%). We divided the population in two groups according the position of the distal anastomosis (zone 2 vs zone 3) and the length of the stent graft (< 150 mm vs > 150 mm): conservative group (Zone 2 anastomosis + stent length < 150mm, n. 140 pts) and aggressive group (zone 3 anastomosis + stent length > 150mm, n. 141). Results: The overall 30-day mortality rate was 13%(48/369); the risk factor analysis showed that an aggressive approach was neither a risk factor for major complication (permanent dialysis, tracheostomy, bowel malperfusion and permanent paraplegia) neither for 30-day mortality. The survival rate at 1, 5,10 and 15 years was 87.7%,75%,61.3% and 58.4% respectively. During the follow up, an aortic reintervention was performed in 122 patients (38%), 5 patients received a non-aortic cardiac surgery. Freedom from aortic reintervention at 1-,5- and 10-year was 77%,54% and 44% respectively. The freedom from aortic reintervention was higher in the ‘aggressive’ group (62.5%vs40.0% at 5 years, log-rank=0.056). An aggressive approach was not protective for aortic reintervention at follow up and for death at follow up. Conclusions: The FET technique represents a feasible and efficient option in the treatment of complex thoracic aortic pathologies. An aortic reintervention after FET is very common and the decision-making approach should consider and balance the higher risk of an aggressive approach in terms of post-operative complication versus the higher risk of a second aortic reintervention at follow-up.