Search

Background. Over the years, with the introduction of minimally invasive techniques and technologies aimed at reducing surgical trauma, aortic valve surgery has considerably developed and improved. Our approach includes: reduced incisions (upper “J” ministernomy or anterior right minithoracotomy), “ultra fast-track” anesthesia protocols, sutureless and rapid deployment valve prostheses and miniaturized circuits of extracorporeal circulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with this multidisciplinary approach. Methods. Between October 2016 and November 2018, 429 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at the Cardiac Surgery Unit of the “Ospedali Riuniti” of Ancona, Italy. Overall, 91 patients (21.2%) were operated according to our minimally invasive approach. A severe aortic valve stenosis was the indication for surgery in 90.1% of patients, aortic valve insufficiency in the remaining 18.7%. Results. There were neither in-hospital deaths nor major or minor neurological events. Atrial fibrillation was the main postoperative complications (n=26, 28.6%). Four patients (4.4%) underwent permanent pacemaker implantation due to third-degree atrioventricular block, and a surgical bleeding revision was performed in 3.3%. No episodes of respiratory failure were reported. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (5-8 days). Conclusions. Our initial experience with a 360° minimally invasive approach for the treatment of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement shows encouraging clinical outcomes; this approach may lead to an improved perception of surgery both by patients and their families. However, further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the long-term results.

Thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) is a silent disease that can become rapidly lethal once dissection or rupture occurs. To prevent aortic catastrophe, prophylactic aortic replacement is the mainstay of therapy in patients with TAA. Currently, surgical indications for TAA repair are predominantly based on the aortic size. However, the effectiveness of the diameter criterion to predict aortic rupture and dissection has been largely questioned over the last years. Growing evidence suggests that aortic size alone May not be sufficient to predict the risk in all TAAs. In this setting, other predictors such as genetic, environmental, biochemical and hemodynamic factors have been proposed. The aim of this paper is to review and discuss on current evidence, controversies and future directions for the treatment of patients with TAA.

Treatment of aortic valve disease has become less and less invasive during the last years, thanks to progress in anesthesiology, surgical techniques, and perfusion management. In fact, it has been demonstrated that shorter skin incision, combined with ultra-fast-track anesthesia and minimized extracorporeal circuit could improve clinical outcomes. Current evidence shows that minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation system is associated with reduced red blood cells’ transfusion rate, improved end-organ perfusion, decreased incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, air embolism leakage, and so less cerebral accidents with better neurological outcomes. Moreover, the use of a closed circuit seems to be more physiologic for the patients, reducing systemic inflammatory response due to less air–blood contact and the use of biocompatible surfaces. In the literature, the benefits of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation are described mostly for coronary surgery but few data are nowadays available for minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation during aortic valve replacement. In this article, we describe our perfusion protocol in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND Isolated tricuspid valve (TV) surgery is a rare procedure generally considered at high risk for perioperative mortality and poor long-term outcomes. Surgical treatment can be performed with either an arrested heart (AH) or beating heart (BH) technique. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of isolated tricuspid surgery with 2 different approaches.METHODS The Surgical-Tricuspid Study is a multicenter international retrospective study enrolling adult patients who un- derwent isolated TV procedures (n = 406; age 56 +/- 16 years; 56% female) at 13 international sites. The AH and BH strategies were performed in 253 and 153 patients, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare groups.RESULTS After matching, 129 pairs were obtained and analyzed. The 30-day mortality rate was 6.2% versus 5.0% in the AH and BH groups, respectively (P = .9). The rates of acute renal failure requiring replacement therapy (10% versus 3%; P = .02) and stroke (1.6% versus 0%; P = .08) were numerically higher in the AH group. The 6-year survival rate was 67% +/- 6% versus 78% +/- 5% in the AH and BH groups, respectively (P = .18), whereas freedom from cardiac death was 75% +/- 5% versus 84% +/- 4% (P = .21). The 6-year composite cardiac end point of cardiac death and reoperation rate was 60% +/- 9% versus 86% +/- 5% (P - .024) comparing AH-TV replacement and BH-TV repair groups.CONCLUSIONS Isolated TV surgery performed with a BH strategy is a safe option and resulted in a trend of increased long-term survival and freedom from reoperation compared with the standard AH technique. Patients undergoing BH valve repair had the best long-term outcome. (C) 2022 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Staged replacement of the aortic arch and thoraco-abdominal aorta (TAA) with a frozen elephant trunk followed by TAA repair is a valuable treatment for patients with chronic TAA dissection. However, in patients with an unclampable descending thoracic aorta, the retrieval of the trunk can be problematic and the proximal stent graft-to-graft anastomosis technically challenging. Here we present our ‘double layer’ frozen elephant trunk technique to treat patients with TAA dissection.

Despite minimally-invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) having gained interest within the cardiac surgeons’ community, patient requests for interventions associated with minimized trauma and faster recovery often remains unfulfilled (1). In our center, we believe that a MI-AVR program (2) may benefit from a multidisciplinary approach that combines reduced incisions with an increasing use of rapid deployment valves (RD), minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation system (MiECC) (3) and fast-track anesthetic (UFT) management. Our experience with the MI trans-axillary direct approach in mitral valve surgery (MVS) (4) led us to consider that the aortic valve could be nicely exposed from the same approach. As a result, we recently initiated the use of trans-axillary incisions for MI-AVR in selected patients. In this setting, RD valves may help with reducing technical complexity and operative times. The aim of this video is to share our approach in a step-by-step fashion.

Objectives Infective endocarditis (IE) with extensive peri-annular abscesses and aortic root involvement is a life-threatening disease. Aortic root replacement with a valved conduit is the most common intervention in this setting and represents a serious challenge for the surgeon. In the present two-center study we analyzed early and midterm outcomes of a high-risk series of IE patients undergoing aortic root reconstruction with a sub-annular implantation of a totally biological valved conduit at our centers. Methods The series comprised 29 patients (18 males, mean age: 72.3 ± 10.1 years) operated at "Lancisi Cardiovascular Center" of Ancona and "Pasquinucci Heart Hospital" of Massa, Italy, between May 2016 and October 2019. All patients had undergone a previous cardiac surgery. Median Euroscore-II was 12.6%. Following aggressive debridement, a Bioconduit was implanted using a sub-annular implantation technique in all cases. Results Thirty-day mortality was 13.8% (n = 4). Multiorgan failure was cause of death in all cases. Respiratory complications occurred in eight patients (27.6%). Renal complications requiring temporary or permanent dialysis occurred in six (20.7%) and two (6.9%) patients, respectively. Mortality and morbidity were not related to the surgical approach. At 1-year follow-up three patients died and no patients underwent reoperation neither reported endocarditis of the biological conduit. Conclusion Considered the high-risk profile of the study cohort, our results suggest safety and efficacy of our approach at 1-year. Indeed, we contend that our subannular implantation of a 100% pericardial valved conduit, allowing an effective abscess exclusion and a conduit anchoring to healthy tissues, can reduce the risk of reinfection and dehiscence.

Background. The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) mandates attention to outcomes after surgical AVR (SAVR). The aim of this study was to assess 1-year outcomes in a contemporary large cohort of patients undergoing AVR. Methods. Data from 520 patients who underwent isolated SAVR between October 2016 and April 2019 were prospectively collected. Results. The mean age of the study population was 72.8 ± 10.1 years and the average EuroSCORE II was 1.8 ± 1.5%. SAVR was performed using minimally invasive approaches (MI-AVR) in 306 patients (58.9%). However, the rate of MI-AVR considerably increased over the observational period from 47.9% to 86.7% (p

OBJECTIVES The impact of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) systems on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. This study compared in-hospital and 1 year outcomes of MI-AVR interventions using MiECC systems versus conventional extracorporeal circulation (c-ECC). METHODS Data from 288 consecutive patients undergoing primary isolated MI-AVR using MiECC (n = 102) or c-ECC (n = 186) were prospectively collected. Treatment selection bias was addressed by the use of propensity score matching (MiECC vs c-ECC). After propensity score matching, 2 groups of 93 patients each were created. RESULTS Compared with c-ECC, MiECC was associated with a higher rate of autologous priming (82.4% vs 0%; P CONCLUSIONS MiECC systems were a safe and effective tool in patients who had MI-AVR. Compared with c-ECC, MiECC promotes ultra-fast-track management and provides better clinical outcomes as regards bleeding, blood transfusions and postoperative AF. Thus, by reducing surgical injury and promoting faster recovery, MiECC may further validate MI-AVR interventions.

Background: Although sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been associated with an increased rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to conventional AVR (c-AVR), the predictors of new conduction abnormalities remain to be clarified. This study aimed to identify risk factors for conduction disorders in patients undergoing AVR surgery. Methods: Data from 243 patients receiving minimally invasive AVR were prospectively collected. SURD-AVR was performed in 103 (42.4%) patients and c-AVR in 140 (57.6%). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of new-onset conduction disorders, defined as first degree atrioventricular (AV) block, advanced AV block requiring PPM implantation, left anterior fascicular block (LAFB), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB). Results: The unadjusted comparison revealed that SURD-AVR was associated with a higher rate of advanced AV block requiring PPM when compared with c-AVR (10.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.01). After adjusting for other measured covariates (OR: 1.6, P=0.58) and for the estimated propensity of SURD-AVR (OR: 5.1, P=0.1), no significant relationship between type of AVR and PPM implantation emerged. On multivariable analysis, preoperative first-degree AV block (OR: 6.9, P=0.04) and RBBB (OR: 6.9, P=0.03) were independent risk factors for PPM. Subgroup analysis of patients with normal preoperative conduction revealed similar incidence of PPM between SURD-AVR and c-AVR (1.3% vs. 1.9%, P=0.6). When compared with c-AVR, SURD-AVR was associated with a greater incidence of postoperative new onset LBBB (18.1% vs. 3.2%, P

BACKGROUND: Neurological events after cardiac surgery or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have a dramatic effect on patients' prognosis. Recent development of transcatheter cerebral protection systems aims to reduce their incidence, even if their use is currently limited to TAVI. Here we report our initial experience with transcatheter cerebral protection devices used in patients at high brain embolic risk undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: Between December 2018 and March 2020, at the Cardiac Surgery Unit of Lancisi Cardiovascular Center in Ancona, Italy, 9 patients (mean age 77 years; median EuroSCORE II: 2.2%) underwent cardiac surgery using a transcatheter cerebral protection system (Sentinel, Claret Medical, Santa Rosa, CA, USA). In all cases, a preoperative computed tomography scan highlighted the presence of severely calcified ascending aorta. RESULTS: The brain protection system was successfully implanted in all patients. Total time for device implantation and removal was less than 10 min in all cases. Four patients underwent aortic valve replacement, 2 mitral surgery, whereas 3 received combined valve surgery. Calcified debris were found within filters in 100% of patients. Postoperatively, there were neither neurological events nor major complications. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, transferring transcatheter brain protection techniques and technologies to cardiac surgery allowed us (with excellent results) to avoid palliative percutaneous or medical management in patients with severe aortic calcifications. Waiting for more solid evidence, we believe that our example supports the concept of hybrid surgery as a therapeutic approach capable of extending traditional surgical indications with improved patients' outcomes.

Infective endocarditis (IE) with extensive annular disruption and aortic root involvement carries an ominous prognosis (1,2). The broad and severe impairment of the peri-annular tissues at the level of the interventricular septum and mitro-aortic continuity may hamper a successful surgical reconstruction, with dehiscence and retraction of the anterior mitral leaflet (AML) being a possible dreadful complication (3,4). Here we present our technique for root replacement (Bentall) that involves a sub-annular implantation of a 100% pericardial valved conduit (BioconduitTM, Biointegral Surgical, Inc., Ontario, Canada).

OBJECTIVES The Sutureless and Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR) was established by a consortium of 18 research centres-the International Valvular Surgery Study Group (IVSSG)-to overcome limitations of the literature and provide adequately powered evidence on sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valves replacement (SURD-AVR). METHODS Data from 3343 patients undergoing SURD-AVR over a 10-year period (2007-2017) were collected in the registry. The mean age of the patients was 76.8 ± 6.7 years, with 36.4% being 80 years or older. The average logistic EuroSCORE was 11.3 ± 9.7%. RESULTS Isolated SURD-AVR was performed in 70.7% (n = 2362) of patients using full sternotomy (35.3%) or less invasive approaches (64.8%). Overall hospital mortality was 2.1%, being 1.4% in patients who had isolated SURD-AVR and 3.5% in those who had concomitant procedures (P

OBJECTIVES: Few case studies have shown the feasibility of the prosthesis-sparing operation in patients requiring aortic root replacement after aortic valve replacement. Such technique allows the sparing of a well-functioning aortic valve prosthesis and facilitates the root substitution with only a vascular graft. The aim of the present study was to assess short- and mid-term outcomes of the patients who underwent such procedures at our institution. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2012, 26 patients (mean age: 59 ± 13.6 years; male: 21, 80.8%) underwent the prosthesis-sparing operation in our institution. The mean time from previous aortic intervention was 20.1 ± 6.9 years; two patients were operated for a Type A acute aortic dissection. RESULTS: Overall, two patients (7.7%) died during hospitalization: both were operated for a complicated Type A acute aortic dissection. None of the electively operated patients died or presented serious complications after surgery, except for one patient (3.8%) who required chest re-exploration for excessive bleeding due to coagulopathy. At follow-up (100% completed at 30 ± 24 months) two late deaths occurred: one due to lung cancer and one due to infective endocarditis. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 1- and 3-year survival were 92 and 85.4%, respectively. No late cardiac/aortic re-interventions were performed during follow-up, with a 5-year freedom from re-operation of 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Our favourable short- and mid-term results indicate that the prosthesis-sparing operation is a valid treatment option in selected re-operative aortic root procedures.

Marfan syndrome is the most frequently inherited disorder of connective tissue and is strongly associated with aortic dilatation, dissection, and rupture; in these patients, type B dissection occurs substantially. It is not known whether stent grafting, which is now frequently used in type B aortic dissection and descending thoracic aneurysms in non-Marfan patients, is a valuable option in Marfan patients, and reports from the literature are sparse and sporadic. We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the early and late results of endovascular stent grafting in Marfan patients with type B dissection in the attempt to quantify possible benefits or potential drawbacks of this approach in these usually very sick patients. Although associated with a low operative risk (1.9%), endovascular stent grafting in patients with Marfan syndrome carries a substantial risk of early and late complications, mainly endoleaks and surgical conversions, and of death at midterm follow-up. Because these complications are relatively more frequent in patients undergoing endovascular stent grafting for chronic dissections, these data suggest caution against the routine use of endovascular stent grafting in Marfan patients. © 2013 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Several studies have shown that after DeBakey type 1 acute aortic dissection (DB1-AAD) surgery, 70% of the surviving patients still present with a dissected distal aorta that can eventually dilate, rupture, lead to distal malperfusion or require secondary extensive interventions. In order to minimize these complications, different surgeons have advocated total thoracic aorta remodelling procedures during primary aortic repair to promote false-lumen obliteration and distal thrombosis. Such management, which includes arch replacement and antegrade stenting of the dissected descending thoracic aorta (DTA), remains controversial due to its perceived increased operative mortality. Furthermore, the desired long-term benefits remain to be confirmed. The present article aimed to evaluate results of antegrade stenting of DTA during surgery for DB1-AAD, focusing on in-hospital mortality and morbidity, and long-term survival, occurrence of distal aortic remodelling and freedom from aortic reinterventions. Early results from the identified studies suggested that hybrid repair of DB1-AAD with antegrade DTA stenting was associated with satisfactory in-hospital mortality (10.0%) and stroke (4.8%) rates, while the risk of spinal cord injury appeared to be higher (4.3%) than that reported from historical controls. Furthermore, antegrade stenting of DTA was associated with promising rates of partial/complete thrombosis of the peristent DTA false lumen (88.9%), suggesting that aortic remodelling is highly probable with this approach. Evidence on long-term results after proximal acute dissection repair is still sparse, and mostly jeopardized by limited data beyond 5 years. Further investigations with longer term follow-up and with specifically designed protocols to assess long-term clinical outcomes (late aortic mortality and freedom from distal aortic reinterventions) of total thoracic aortic remodelling procedures vs more conservative management are warranted to reach more definitive conclusions.

Open surgical repair for extensive aortic disease represents a great challenge, and staged approaches involving multiple hybrid procedures have emerged as an appealing alternative to conventional open repair.1 We report a case of DeBakey type I aortic dissection treated with a total aortic repair through a staged hybrid approach.

Aortic disease is the most life-threatening complication of Marfan syndrome. Over the last decades, improved medical management and surgical results of prophylactic aortic interventions on the aortic root have dramatically increased expectancy of life in Marfan syndrome patients. As a result, the number of Marfan syndrome patients requiring secondary interventions on the thoracic or thoraco-abdominal aorta due to development of aortic disease or new type B dissection, has substantially increased. In this setting, open surgical interventions represent the treatment of choice. Nevertheless, the available literature, although restricted to small case series, indicates that endovascular repair is a feasible treatment option leading to satisfactory short-term results and may provide a bridging role to definitive open reconstruction. The aim of this paper was to review surgical and endovascular outcomes of aortic disease in Marfan syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Different approaches are available to treat patients with complex and extensive diseases of the thoracic aorta. This study aims to report and comment on our experience with the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique. METHODS: Between January 2007 and July 2012, 122 patients (male: 86.9%; mean age: 61 years) underwent extensive thoracic aorta surgery using the FET approach with an E-vita open prosthesis. The most frequent indications for surgery included residual type A chronic dissection (45.9%), extensive degenerative aneurysm of the thoracic aorta (27%), and type A acute aortic dissection (7.4%). Sixty-nine patients had already undergone cardiac/aortic interventions through a median sternotomy. A total of 60 associated procedures were performed, with 76.6% on the aortic root. Selective antegrade cerebral perfusion and moderate hypothermia were used in all cases. RESULTS: Overall, hospital mortality was 15.2%. Post-operatively, 7.4% and 9.0% of patients were complicated by permanent neurologic dysfunction and spinal cord injury, respectively. For the surviving patients, 1- and 3-year freedom from all-cause mortality was (91.7±2.8)% and (79.1±6.1)%, respectively. 1- and 3-year freedom from re-intervention was (83.1±3.5)% and (74.1±4.3)%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, FET surgery allowed treatment of complex patients with extensive thoracic aortic diseases with satisfactory short- and mid-term results. Acute and chronic dissections represent interesting subsets for FET application. While further larger and longer-term studies are required to show the survival benefits of the FET technique versus other types of management, new strategies for spinal cord injury (paraplegia/paraparesis) reduction should also be researched.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to report our hospital and long-term results after reinterventions on the thoracic aorta. METHODS: Between 1986 and 2011, 224 reoperations on the proximal thoracic aorta after previous aortic surgery were performed in our institution. The number of reinterventions quadrupled during the course of the study period. Mean patient age was 58.1 years, and 174 patients (77.7%) were male. An urgent/emergency operation was performed in 39 patients (17.4%). Indications for surgery included degenerative and chronic postdissection aneurysm (n = 166), false aneurysm (n = 31), active prosthetic infection (n = 16), acute dissection (n = 10), and other (n = 1). Surgical procedures involved the aortic root in 40.6% of patients, the ascending aorta in 9.4%, the aortic arch in 24.6%, and the entire proximal thoracic aorta in 25.4%. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 12.1%. On multivariate analysis, cardiopulmonary bypass time (odds ratio, 1.1023/minute; P < .001), and urgent/emergency status (odds ratio, 5.6; P < .001) emerged as independent predictors of hospital mortality. The follow-up was 98.7% complete. Estimated 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 84.4%, 72.5%, and 48.5%, respectively. Eighteen reinterventions were performed during follow-up-16 because of the progression of aortic disease at the proximal aorta (n = 2) and downstream aorta (n = 14). Freedom from reoperation at 1, 5, and 10 years was 95.6%, 90.2%, and 81.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperative aortic surgery was associated with satisfactory short- and long-term results, especially if carried out on an elective basis. The extent of the aortic replacement did not impact survival and was associated with a reduced need for reintervention. The progressive nature of aortic disease and the favorable results of elective primary aortic interventions suggest favoring aggressive aortic resections at initial surgery.

Background The impact of different cannulation strategies on outcomes of aortic arch surgery remains controversial. This retrospective study sought to evaluate central cannulation (ascending aorta, right axillary, and innominate artery) compared with femoral artery cannulation for aortic arch surgery, and to identify among preoperative and intraoperative variables the independent predictors of death and permanent neurologic dysfunction (PND) in aortic arch surgery. Methods All patients were operated through a median sternotomy using antegrade selective cerebral perfusion with moderate hypothermia as a method of brain protection. Treatment bias was addressed by use of propensity-score matching and multivariate regression analysis. Logistic regression models were used to identify the independent predictors of hospital mortality and PND. Results Of the 473 patients undergoing aortic arch surgery, 273 (57.7%) underwent femoral cannulation (FC), and 200 (42.3%) underwent central cannulation (CC). The CC and FC cannulation were associated with similar risk of in-hospital death (absolute risk reduction [ARR]: 0.7%; p = 0.880) and PND (ARR:-2.6%, p = 0.361) in the overall cohort and after adjusting for propensity-based matching (ARR for hospital mortality: 2.2%, p = 0.589; ARR for PND: 3.4%, p = 0.271). Female gender (odds ratio [OR]:2.1, p = 0.030), type A acute dissection or intramural hematoma (OR: 2.2; p = 0.041), and CPB time (OR: 1.010/minute, p = 0.015) were independent predictors of in-hospital death. Female gender (OR: 2.4; p = 0.033), type A acute dissection or intramural hematoma (OR: 4.2; p = 0.005), and diabetes (OR: 6.6, p = 0.007) were independent predictors of PND. Conclusions During aortic arch surgery, CC and FC are associated with a similar risk of postoperative death and PND. Type A acute aortic dissection and cardiopulmonary bypass time remain strong risk factors for mortality and PND.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence has shown that delayed management of traumatic injury of the thoracic aorta determines survival benefits as compared with immediate treatment. However, few data exist comparing outcomes after delayed open surgical or endovascular management. Accordingly, we reviewed our experience with delayed management, stratifying the data according to type of repair; open surgical versus endovascular. METHODS: Since 1992, delayed aortic repair has represented our first-line management for all blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (BTTAI) patients, except for those who presented with or became unstable due to impending aortic rupture. These patients were converted to urgent primary aortic repair. Thus, between 1992 and 2010, a total of 77 BTTAI patients were managed according to this policy. There were 57 (74%) men having a mean age of 33.4 years. Thirty-one (41.3%) patients underwent open surgical repair (SR), 44 (58.6%) underwent endovascular repair (ER), and 2 died while awaiting aortic repair. At admission, the clinical and trauma characteristics were similar in both groups. The trauma-to-repair time span (in days) was 200 (Q1-Q3: 27 to 340) and 10 (Q1-Q3: 2 to 79) for SR and ER patients, respectively (p = 0.001). Due to unpaired hemodynamic or imaging signs of impending aortic rupture, 15 patients required urgent repair, which was endovascular in 11 (25%) cases and surgical in 4 (12.9%). RESULTS: Overall, hospital mortality was 3.9% (n = 3), being 0% in SR patients and 2.3% (n = 1) in ER patients (p = 0.398). No new postoperative paraplegia occurred; a cerebellar stroke occurred in 1 (2.3%) ER patient receiving intentional coverage of the left subclavian artery. During follow-up (96.1% complete at 95 ± 70 months), no late deaths occurred. At 15 years, the estimates of survival and freedom from secondary aortic procedures were 96% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed management of traumatic aortic injury was associated with satisfactory short- and long-term results without significant differences between open surgical and endovascular repair. However, the reduced invasiveness of endovascular repair can optimize operative timing allowing prompt aortic repair in unstable patients, earlier repair in stable patients, and, when indicated, easier concomitant non-aortic surgery.

AIM: The aim of this paper was to compare hospital outcomes in patients undergoing elective surgery of the thoracic aorta using the right axillary artery (RAA) and the innominate artery (IA) as a cannulation site for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) arterial inflow. METHODS: Between September 2009 and October 2011, 71 patients underwent elective aortic procedures with RAA (N.=27) and IA (N.=44) cannulation. Selection of RAA vs. IA was not randomized, but rather based on surgical judgment of best indication in each patient. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables were compared according to cannulation site. RESULTS: Preoperative comorbidities, underlying aortic pathology, and surgical procedures were similar in RAA and IA patients. Hospital mortality was 11.1% and 6.8% in RAA and IA patients, respectively (P=0.243). Overall, 4 brain infarctions occurred, all left sided (RAA: 3.7% vs. IA: 6.8%; P=0.508). One brachial plexus injury, and 1 arterial dissection occurred in RAA group. No cannulation-related morbidity was observed in IA patients. Theoretical CPB flow could be reached in all patients, but resistances through the cannulation sites were more favourable in IA patients. CONCLUSION: RAA and IA were associated with similarly valid results. The choice between the two, based on the specific patient's characteristics, can improve outcomes after aortic surgery.