Search

Background : Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) is a life-threatening condition which requires prompt diagnosis and surgical treatment. When TAAD involves the aortic root, aortic valve-sparing or Bentall procedures are the main surgical treatment options. Method: The subjects of this analysis were 3735 patients included in the European Registry of Type A Aortic Dissection (ERTAAD). Propensity score matching was performed by estimating a propensity score from being treated with the Bentall or the David procedure using multilevel mixed-effects logistics, considering the cluster effect of the participating hospitals. Results: A Bentall procedure was performed in 862 patients, while a David operation was performed in 139 patients. The proportion of aortic root replacement, as well as the different techniques of aortic root replacement, varied significantly between the participating hospitals ( p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, we obtained two groups of 115 patients each, and no statistical differences were reported in terms of postoperative outcomes, except for the rate of dialysis, which was higher in the patients requiring a Bentall procedure (17.4% vs. 7.0%, p -value 0.016). In the unmatched cohorts, the David procedure was associated with a lower 10-year mortality rate compared to the Bentall procedure (30.1% vs. 45.6%, p -value 0.004), but no difference was observed after matching (30.0% vs. 43.9%, p -value 0.082). After 10 years, no differences were observed in terms of proximal aortic reoperation (3.9% vs. 4.1%, p -value 0.954), even after propensity score matching (2.8% vs. 1.8%, p -value 0.994). Conclusions: The David and Bentall procedures are durable treatment methods for TAAD. When feasible, it is advisable that the David procedure is performed for acute TAAD by surgeons with experience with this demanding surgical technique.

Objectives: To analyze Heart Team decisions and outcomes following failure of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) prostheses. Methods: Patients undergoing re-operations following index SAVR (Redo-SAVR) and those undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) following SAVR were included in this study. Patients who underwent index SAVR and/or Redo-SAVR for endocarditis were excluded. Data are presented as medians and 25th-75th percentiles, or absolute numbers and percentages. Outcomes were analyzed in accordance to the VARC-3 criteria. Results: Between 01/2015 and 03/2021, 53 patients underwent Redo-SAVR, 103 patients ViV-TAVR. Mean EuroSCORE II was 5.7% (3.5-8.5) in the Redo-SAVR group and 9.2% (5.4-13.6) in the ViV group. In the Redo-SAVR group, 12 patients received aortic root enlargement (22.6%). Length of hospital and ICU stay was longer in the Redo-SAVR group ( p < 0.001; p < 0.001), PGmax and PGmean were lower in the Redo-SAVR group as compared to the ViV-TAVR group (18 mmHg (10-30) vs. 26 mmHg (19-38), p < 0.001) (9 mmHg (6-15) vs. 15 mmHg (9-21), p < 0.001). A higher rate of paravalvular leakage was seen in the ViV-TAVR group ( p = 0.013). VARC-3 Early Safety were comparable between the two populations ( p = 0.343). Survival at 1 year and 5 years was 82% and 36% in the ViV-TAVR cohort and 84% and 77% in the Redo-SAVR cohort. The variables were patient age (OR 1.061; [95% CI 1.020-1.104], p = 0.004), coronary heart disease (OR 2.648; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021), and chronic renal insufficiency (OR 2.711; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021) showed a significant correlation to ViV-TAVR. Conclusions: Heart Team decisions are crucial in the treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses and lead to a low mortality in both treatment paths thanks to patient-specific therapy planning. ViV-TAVR offers a treatment for elderly or intermediate-risk profile patients with comparable short-term mortality. However, this therapy is associated with increased pressure gradients and a high prevalence of paravalvular leakage. Redo-SAVR enables the surgical treatment of concomitant cardiac pathologies and allows anticipation for later VIV-TAVR by implanting the largest possible valve prostheses.

(1) Background: Acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD) may complicate the outcome of cardiovascular procedures. Data on the outcome after surgery for iatrogenic acute TAAD is scarce. (2) Methods: The European Registry of Type A Aortic Dissection (ERTAAD) is a multicenter, retrospective study including patients who underwent surgery for acute TAAD at 18 hospitals from eight European countries. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 5-year mortality. Twenty-seven secondary outcomes were evaluated. (3) Results: Out of 3902 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for acute TAAD, 103 (2.6%) had iatrogenic TAAD. Cardiac surgery (37.8%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (36.9%) were the most frequent causes leading to iatrogenic TAAD, followed by diagnostic coronary angiography (13.6%), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (10.7%) and peripheral endovascular procedure (1.0%). In hospital mortality was 20.5% after cardiac surgery, 31.6% after percutaneous coronary intervention, 42.9% after diagnostic coronary angiography, 45.5% after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and nihil after peripheral endovascular procedure (p = 0.092), with similar 5-year mortality between different subgroups of iatrogenic TAAD (p = 0.710). Among 102 propensity score matched pairs, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among patients with iatrogenic TAAD (30.4% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.013) compared to those with spontaneous TAAD. This finding was likely related to higher risk of postoperative heart failure (35.3% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.0001) among iatrogenic TAAD patients. Five-year mortality was comparable between patients with iatrogenic and spontaneous TAAD (46.2% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.163). (4) Conclusions: Iatrogenic origin of acute TAAD is quite uncommon but carries a significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality compared to spontaneous TAAD.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients following surgery for infective native valve endocarditis (NVE) and prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE)., Methods: We retrospectively identified 633 consecutive patients who had undergone surgery for infective endocarditis at our center between January 2005 and October 2018. The patients were interviewed, and the SF-36 survey was used to assess the HRQOL of survivors. Propensity score matching (2:1) was performed with data from a German reference population. Multivariable analysis incorporated binary logistic regression using a forward stepwise (conditional) model., Results: The median age of the cohort was 67 (55-74) years, and 75.6% were male. Operative mortality was 13.7% in the NVE group and 21.6% in the PVE group ( p = 0.010). The overall survival at 1 year was 88.0% and was comparable between the groups. The physical health summary scores were 49 (40-55) for the NVE patients and 45 (37-52) for the PVE patients ( p = 0.043). The median mental health summary scores were 52 (35-57) and 49 (41-56), respectively ( p = 0.961). On comparison of the HRQOL to the reference population, the physical health summary scores were comparable. However, significant differences were observed with regard to the mental health summary scores ( p = 0.005)., Conclusions: Our study shows that there are significant differences in the various domains of HRQOL, not only between NVE and PVE patients, but also in comparison to healthy individuals. In addition to preoperative health status, it is important to consider the patient's expectations regarding surgery. Further prospective studies are required.

Despite the rapid increase in experience and technological improvement, the incidence of conduction disturbances in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the self-expandable CoreValve Evolut valve remains high. Recently, a cusp-overlap view (COP) implantation technique has been proposed for TAVR with self-expandable valves offering an improved visualization during valve expansion compared to the three-cusp view (TCV). This study aims to systematically analyze procedural outcomes of TAVR patients treated with the CoreValve Evolut valve using a COP compared to TCV in a high-volume center. The primary endpoint was technical success according the 2021 VARC-3 criteria. A total of 122 consecutive patients (61 pts. TCV: April 2019 to November 2020; 61 pts. COP: December 2020 to October 2021) that underwent TAVR with the CoreValve Evolut prosthesis were included in this analysis. Although there was no difference in the primary endpoint technical success between TCV and COP patients (93.4% vs. 90.2%, OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.16, 2.4, p = 0.51), we observed a significantly lower risk for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) among COP patients (TCV: 27.9% vs. COP: 13.1%, OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15, 0.97, p = 0.047). Implantation of the CoreValve Evolut prosthesis using the COP might help to reduce the rate of PPI following TAVR.