The Impact of Pre-Operative Malperfusion on Outcome in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Results From the GERAADA Registry

BACKGROUND Malperfusion adversely affects outcomes in patients with acute type A aortic dissection, but reliable quantitative data are lacking. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of various forms of malperfusion on early outcome. METHODS A total of 2,137 consecutive patients enrolled in GERAADA (German Registry for Acute Aortic Dissection Type A) who underwent surgery between 2006 and 2010, of whom 717 (33.6%) had any kind of pre-operative malperfusion, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS All-cause 30-day mortality was 16.9% and varied substantially according to the number of organ systems affected by malperfusion (none, 12.6%; 1 system, 21.3%; 2 systems, 30.9%; 3 systems, 43.4%; p < 0.001). Pre-operative cerebral malperfusion, comatose state, peripheral malperfusion, visceral malperfusion, involvement of supra-aortic branches, coronary malperfusion, and renal malperfusion were all independent predictors of developing any post-operative malperfusion syndrome. When survival was considered, age, peripheral malperfusion, involvement of supra-aortic branches, coronary malperfusion, spinal malperfusion, a primary entry in the descending aorta, and pre-operative comatose state were independent predictors, again with increasing significance. CONCLUSIONS Malperfusion remains a severe clinical condition with strong potential for adverse outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. The GERAADA registry suggests that the impact of the number of organs involved and the type of malperfusion on outcome differs substantially. Introducing an appropriate classification system, such as "complicated" and uncomplicated" acute type A aortic dissection, might help predict individual risk as well as select a surgical strategy that may quickly resolve malperfusion.

Clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic valve stenosis according to the assigned treatment modality

OBJECTIVES This study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality. BACKGROUND The optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown. METHODS Of 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year. RESULTS LEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS Among LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients.

Long-term follow-up after implantation of the Shelhigh® No-React® complete biological aortic valved conduit†.

OBJECTIVES Long-term follow-up reports after implantation of the Shelhigh® (Shelhigh, Inc., NJ, USA) No-React® aortic valved conduit used for aortic root replacement do not exist. METHODS Between November 1998 and December 2007, the Shelhigh® No-React® aortic valved conduit was implanted in 291 consecutive patients with a mean age of 69.6 ± 9.1 years, and 33.7% were female (n = 98). Indications were annulo-aortic ectasia (n = 202), aortic valve stenosis combined with ascending aortic aneurysm (n = 67), acute type A aortic dissection (n = 29), endocarditis (n = 26) and other related pathologies (n = 48) including 62 patients with previous cardiac surgery. Data from two cardiac institutions were analysed retrospectively using SPSS (SPSS Software IBM, Inc., 2014, NY, USA). RESULTS Operative mortality was 10% (n = 29). Main cause of death was cardiac failure in 15 patients (51.8%), neurological events in 6 patients (20.7%), respiratory failure in 4 patients (13.8%), bleeding complications in 2 patients (6.9%) and gastrointestinal ischaemia in 2 cases (6.9%). There were 262 hospital survivors and all were entered in the follow-up study (100% complete). During the long-term follow-up (mean 70.3 ± 53.1 in months), a total of 126/262 patients (44.3%) died. Main causes of death in patients after discharge were cardiac (n = 37, 14.1%), neurological (n = 15, 5.7%) respiratory (n = 12, 4.6%), endocarditis (n = 12, 4.6%) and peripheral vascular disease (n = 5, 1.9%). In 29 (11.1%) patients, the cause of death could not be determined. Reoperation was required in 25 (8.6%) patients due to infection of the conduit (n = 9), aortoventricular disconnection (n = 4), pseudoaneurysm formation (n = 4) and structural valve degeneration (n = 8). Reoperations were performed 5.0 ± 3.8 (range 0.1-11.7) years after index surgery. CONCLUSIONS The Shelhigh® No-React® aortic valved conduit showed satisfactory short-term operative results. However, the long-term follow-up revealed a relatively high rate of deaths, which may be explained by the epidemiology of the patient group, but a substantial proportion of deaths could not be clarified. The overall rate of reoperation (8.6%) during the mid-term follow-up is worrisome and the failures due to aortoventricular disconnection, endocarditis and pseudoaneurysm formation remain unexplained. The redo-procedures were technically demanding. We recommend close follow-up of patients with the Shelhigh® No-React® aortic valved conduit, because besides classical structural valve degeneration, unexpected findings may be observed.

Changes in Left Ventricular Torsion Early Postoperatively After Aortic Valve Replacement and at Long-Term Follow-up.

OBJECTIVE In patients with aortic stenosis, left ventricular systolic torsion (pT) is increased to overcome excessive afterload. This study assessed left ventricular torsion before and immediately after surgical valve replacement and tested the instant effect of fluid loading. DESIGN Prospective, clinical single-center study. SETTING Intensive care unit of a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS 12 patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. INTERVENTIONS Echocardiography was performed on the day before surgery, within 18 hours after surgery including a fluid challenge, and after 2.5 years. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS pT decreased early postoperatively by 21.2% (23.4° ± 5.6° to 18.4° ± 6.9°; p = 0.012) and reached preoperative values at 2.5 years follow-up (24 ± 7). Peak diastolic untwisting velocity occurred later early postoperatively (13% ± 8% to 21% ± 9.4%; p = 0.019) and returned toward preoperative values at follow-up (10.2 ± 4.7°). The fluid challenge increased central venous pressure (8 ± 4 mmHg to 11 ± 4 mmHg; p = 0.003) and reduced peak systolic torsion velocity (138.7 ± 37.6/s to 121.3 ± 32/s; p = 0.032). pT decreased in 3 and increased in 8 patients after fluid loading. Patients whose pT increased had higher early mitral inflow velocity postoperatively (p = 0.04) than those with decreasing pT. Patients with reduced pT after fluid loading received more fluids (p = 0.04) and had a higher positive fluid balance during the intensive care unit stay (p = 0.03). Torsion after fluid loading correlated with total fluid input (p = 0.001) and cumulative fluid balance (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS pT decreased early after aortic valve replacement but remained elevated despite elimination of aortic stenosis. After 2.5 years, torsion had returned to preoperative levels.

Clinical and haemodynamic outcomes in 658 patients receiving the Perceval sutureless aortic valve: early results from a prospective European multicentre study (the Cavalier Trial)†.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the Cavalier trial was to evaluate the safety and performance of the Perceval sutureless aortic valve in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We report the 30-day clinical and haemodynamic outcomes from the largest study cohort with a sutureless valve. METHODS From February 2010 to September 2013, 658 consecutive patients (mean age 77.8 years; 64.4% females; mean logistic EuroSCORE 10.2%) underwent AVR in 25 European Centres. Isolated AVRs were performed in 451 (68.5%) patients with a less invasive approach in 219 (33.3%) cases. Of the total, 40.0% were octogenarians. Congenital bicuspid aortic valve was considered an exclusion criterion. RESULTS Implantation was successful in 628 patients (95.4%). In isolated AVR through sternotomy, the mean cross-clamp time and the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time were 32.6 and 53.7 min, and with the less invasive approach 38.8 and 64.5 min, respectively. The 30-day overall and valve-related mortality rates were 3.7 and 0.5%, respectively. Valve explants, stroke and endocarditis occurred in 0.6, 2.1 and in 0.1% of cases, respectively. Preoperative mean and peak pressure gradients decreased from 44.8 and 73.24 mmHg to 10.24 and 19.27 mmHg at discharge, respectively. The mean effective orifice area improved from 0.72 to 1.46 cm(2). CONCLUSIONS The current 30-day results show that the Perceval valve is safe (favourable haemodynamic effect and low complication rate), and can be implanted with a fast and reproducible technique after a short learning period. Short cross-clamp and CPB times were achieved in both isolated and combined procedures. The Perceval valve represents a promising alternative to biological AVR, especially with a less invasive approach and in older patients.

Contemporary spinal cord protection during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic surgery and endovascular aortic repair: a position paper of the vascular domain of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery†.

Ischaemic spinal cord injury (SCI) remains the Achilles heel of open and endovascular descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal repair. Neurological outcomes have improved coincidentially with the introduction of neuroprotective measures. However, SCI (paraplegia and paraparesis) remains the most devastating complication. The aim of this position paper is to provide physicians with broad information regarding spinal cord blood supply, to share strategies for shortening intraprocedural spinal cord ischaemia and to increase spinal cord tolerance to transitory ischaemia through detection of ischaemia and augmentation of spinal cord blood perfusion. This study is meant to support physicians caring for patients in need of any kind of thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic repair in decision-making algorithms in order to understand, prevent or reverse ischaemic SCI. Information has been extracted from focused publications available in the PubMed database, which are cohort studies, experimental research reports, case reports, reviews, short series and meta-analyses. Individual chapters of this position paper were assigned and after delivery harmonized by Christian D. Etz, Ernst Weigang and Martin Czerny. Consequently, further writing assignments were distributed within the group and delivered in August 2014. The final version was submitted to the EJCTS for review in September 2014.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SU-AVR-IR): design and rationale from the International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG).

BACKGROUND Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) is an innovative approach which shortens cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp durations and may facilitate minimally invasive approach. Evidence outlining its safety, efficacy, hemodynamic profile and potential complications is replete with small-volume observational studies and few comparative publications. METHODS Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and high-volume SU-AVR replacement centers were contacted for recruitment into a global collaborative coalition dedicated to sutureless valve research. A Research Steering Committee was formulated to direct research and support the mission of providing registry evidence warranted for SU-AVR. RESULTS The International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG) was formed under the auspices of the Research Steering Committee, comprised of 36 expert valvular surgeons from 27 major centers across the globe. IVSSG Sutureless Projects currently proceeding include the Retrospective and Prospective Phases of the SU-AVR International Registry (SU-AVR-IR). CONCLUSIONS The global pooling of data by the IVSSG Sutureless Projects will provide required robust clinical evidence on the safety, efficacy and hemodynamic outcomes of SU-AVR.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has emerged as an innovative alternative for treatment of aortic stenosis. By avoiding the placement of sutures, this approach aims to reduce cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) duration and thereby improve surgical outcomes and facilitate a minimally invasive approach suitable for higher risk patients. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of SU-AVR approach in the current literature. METHODS Electronic searches were performed using six databases from their inception to January 2014. Relevant studies utilizing sutureless valves for aortic valve implantation were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical endpoints. RESULTS Twelve studies were identified for inclusion of qualitative and quantitative analyses, all of which were observational reports. The minimally invasive approach was used in 40.4% of included patients, while 22.8% underwent concomitant coronary bypass surgery. Pooled cross-clamp and CPB duration for isolated AVR was 56.7 and 46.5 minutes, respectively. Pooled 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 2.1% and 4.9%, respectively, while the incidences of strokes (1.5%), valve degenerations (0.4%) and paravalvular leaks (PVL) (3.0%) were acceptable. CONCLUSIONS The evaluation of current observational evidence suggests that sutureless aortic valve implantation is a safe procedure associated with shorter cross-clamp and CPB duration, and comparable complication rates to the conventional approach in the short-term.

Mechanical versus biological aortic valve replacement strategies.

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the most frequently performed procedure in valve surgery. The controversy about the optimal choice of the prosthetic valve is as old as the technique itself. Currently there is no perfect valve substitute available. The main challenge is to choose between mechanical and biological prosthetic valves. Biological valves include pericardial (bovine, porcine or equine) and native porcine bioprostheses designed in stented or stentless versions. Homografts and pulmonary autografts are reserved for special indications and will not be discussed in detail in this review. We will focus on the decision making between artificial biological and mechanical prostheses, respectively. The first part of this article reviews guideline recommendations concerning the choice of aortic prostheses in different clinical situations while the second part is focused on novel strategies in the treatment of patients with aortic valve pathology.