Search

Clinical cases referring to the EACTS/STS Guidelines for diagnosing and treating acute and chronic syndromes of the aortic organ aim to assist physicians in selecting the best management strategies for individual patients with a given condition. These expert opinions consider the impact on patient outcomes as well as the risk–benefit ratio of different diagnostic or therapeutic methods. These cases serve as a vital tool to aid physicians in making decisions in their daily practice. However, in essence, although these recommendations serve as a valuable resource to guide clinical practice, their application should be tailored to the needs of the individual patient. Each patient's case is unique, presenting its own set of variables and circumstances. This editorial is a tool designed to support, but not supersede, the decision-making process of physicians, based on their knowledge, expertise and understanding of their patients' individual situations. Furthermore, these clinical cases are based on the EACTS/STS Guidelines for diagnosing and treating acute and chronic syndromes of the aortic organ but should not be interpreted as legally binding documents. The legal responsibilities of healthcare professionals remain firmly grounded in applicable laws and regulations, and the guidelines and the clinical cases presented in this document do not alter these obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document provides guidelines for diagnosing and treating various syndromes of the aortic organ. It covers different aspects of aortic diseases, including pathophysiology, diagnostic work-up, imaging techniques, therapeutic options, and monitoring end-organ function. The guidelines were developed by professionals in the field and endorsed by reputable organizations. The document emphasizes the importance of a common language in aortic medicine, specialized teams, and the increasing global incidence of aortic disease. It provides recommendations for the treatment of different types of aortic diseases and highlights the importance of individualized decision-making and genetic testing. The document also provides a comprehensive overview of the management and treatment of various conditions related to the aorta, emphasizing the need for individualized approaches, monitoring, and collaboration among healthcare professionals. [Extracted from the article]

Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES To examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (AI) undergoing either a Bentall aortic root replacement (ARR) or valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR). METHODS A two-centre retrospective database of patients undergoing ARR from 2004 to 2021 was reviewed. Patients <18 years old were excluded. A total of 1527 adult patients underwent Bentall ARR (n  = 1150, 75%) or VSRR (n  = 377, 25%). Propensity score matching based on preoperative comorbidities was used and 195 matched pairs were identified. Perioperative outcomes, reoperation rates, recurrence of AI and long-term survival were evaluated. RESULTS ARR patients had more concomitant ascending aortic replacement (35% vs 20%, P  = 0.002) and shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (189 vs 233 min, P  < 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp (170 vs 204 min, P  < 0.0001) times than the VSRR group. Postoperatively, outcomes were similar between groups, including stroke (3% vs 2%) and in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs 2.1%), all P  > 0.05. Indications for and rates of reoperation (4% vs 5%, P  = 0.62) of the aortic valve and proximal aorta were similar between ARR and VSRR groups with reoperations occurring a mean of 3.2 years after initial root replacement. The ARR group had less moderate-to-severe AI than the VSRR group (1.6% vs 14%, P  = 0.002) a mean of 3 years after surgery. Ten-year survival was similar between ARR (84%) and VSRR (82%) (P  = 0.69) groups. CONCLUSIONS Both ARR and VSRR can be performed with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe AI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open in new tab Download slide Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES Pleural effusions (PEffs) are known to occur in type B acute aortic dissection (TBAAD). We investigated the relationship between pleural effusion and the development of early or late complications following TBAAD. METHODS The incidence of PEff (defined as at least an obliteration of the costophrenic angle in a frontal projection) diagnosed on their initial chest X-ray in patients with TBAAD enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection was examined. We analysed in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival separately for patients with and without PEffs (PEff+ versus PEff−, respectively). RESULTS Included were 1252 patients with TBAAD, of whom 224 (17.9%) had PEff. Compared with patients without PEff in the initial chest X-ray, these were significantly older [mean age 67 (SD: 14.7) vs 63.4 (SD: 14.2) years, P  = 0.001] and more often female (42.4% vs 34.2%, P  = 0.021) and had more comorbidities (known aortic aneurysm, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal failure, diabetes, congestive heart failure or mitral valve disease). PEff was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (16.1% vs 9.1%, P  = 0.002) and increased rates of neurological complications (16.6% vs 11.1%, P  = 0.029), acute renal failure (27.2% vs 19.7%, P  = 0.017) and hypotension (17.4% vs 9.6%, P  = 0.001). In addition, patients with PEff underwent aortic repair more frequently (44.6% vs 32.5%, P  < 0.001). In the long-term patients with PEff showed lower 5-year post-discharge survival (67.6% vs 77.6%, P  = 0.004). Multivariable analysis with propensity-matched data showed that PEff was not an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 0.8–4.4, P  = 0.141). CONCLUSIONS Patients with TBAAD and evidence of PEff showed a higher in-hospital mortality, are more likely to develop additional in-hospital complications and have a decreased likelihood of survival during follow-up. However, according to propensity-matched analysis, PEff remained not as an independent predictor of worse outcome but might serve as an early surrogate marker to identify higher-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comprehensive information on the characteristics of surgical heart valves (SHVs) is essential for optimal valve selection. Such information is also important in assessing SHV function after valve replacement. Despite the existing regulatory framework for SHV sizing and labelling, this information is challenging to obtain in a uniform manner for various SHVs. To ensure that clinicians are adequately informed, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) set up a Task Force comprised of cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, engineers, regulatory bodies, representatives of the International Organization for Standardization and major valve manufacturers. Previously, the EACTS–STS–AATS Valve Labelling Task Force identified the most important problems around SHV sizing and labelling. This Expert Consensus Document formulates recommendations for providing SHV physical dimensions, intended implant position and haemodynamic performance in a transparent, uniform manner. Furthermore, the Task Force advocates for the introduction and use of a standardized chart to assess the probability of prosthesis–patient mismatch and calls valve manufacturers to provide essential information required for SHV choice on standardized Valve Charts, uniformly for all SHV models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE A number of factors limit the effectiveness of current aortic arch studies in assessing optimal neuroprotection strategies, including insufficient patient numbers, heterogenous definitions of clinical variables, multiple technical strategies, inadequate reporting of surgical outcomes and a lack of collaborative effort. We have formed an international coalition of centres to provide more robust investigations into this topic. METHODS High-volume aortic arch centres were identified from the literature and contacted for recruitment. A Research Steering Committee of expert arch surgeons was convened to oversee the direction of the research. RESULTS The International Aortic Arch Surgery Study Group has been formed by 41 arch surgeons from 10 countries to better evaluate patient outcomes after aortic arch surgery. Several projects, including the establishment of a multi-institutional retrospective database, randomized controlled trials and a prospectively collected database, are currently underway. CONCLUSIONS Such a collaborative effort will herald a turning point in the surgical management of aortic arch pathologies and will provide better powered analyses to assess the impact of varying surgical techniques on mortality and morbidity, identify predictors for neurological and operative risk, formulate and validate risk predictor models and review long-term survival outcomes and quality-of-life after arch surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]