Treatment options for isolated aortic valve insufficiency: a review.

Aortic insufficiency (AI) is a valvular disease with increasing prevalence in older patients. The modern era provides numerous options for the management of AI which is explored here. Traditional interventions included aortic valve replacement with either mechanical or bioprosthetic aortic valves. While the former is known for its durability, it has grown out of favor due to the potential complications of anticoagulation. The preference for bioprosthetic valves is thus on the rise, especially with the advancements of transcatheter technology and the use of valve-in-valve therapy. Surgical options are also no longer limited to replacement but include complex techniques such as those required for aortic valve repair, Ozaki neocuspidization, Ross procedure and valve-sparring aortic root repair. Transcatheter options for the management of AI are not commercially available currently; however, preliminary data from ad-hoc trials, showed promising results and potential use of transcatheter technology in a variety of patients with pure AI.

Clinical Outcomes and Echocardiographic Predictors of Reintervention After Interrupted Aortic Arch Repair.

Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) remains a significant complication after primary repair of interrupted aortic arch with ventricular septal defect (IAA-VSD). Clinical and echocardiographic predictors for LVOTO reoperation are controversial and procedures to prophylactically prevent future LVOTO are not reliable. However, it is important to identify the patients at risk for future LVOTO intervention after repair of IAA-VSD. Patients who underwent single-stage IAA-VSD repair at our center 2006-2021 were retrospectively reviewed, excluding patients with associated cardiac lesions. Two-dimensional measurements, LVOT gradients, and 4-chamber (4C) and short-axis (SAXM) strain were obtained from preoperative and predischarge echocardiograms. Univariate risk analysis for LVOTO reoperation was performed using unpaired t-test. Thirty patients were included with 21 (70%) IAA subtype B and mean weight at surgery 3.0 kg. Repair included aortic arch patch augmentation in 20 patients and subaortic obstruction intervention in three patients. Seven (23%) required reoperations for LVOTO. Patient characteristics were similar between patients who required LVOT reoperation and those who did not. Patch augmentation was not associated with LVOTO reintervention. Patients requiring reintervention had significantly smaller LVOT AP diameter preoperatively and at discharge, and higher LVOT velocity, smaller AV annular diameter, and ascending aortic diameter at discharge. There was an association between LVOT-indexed cross-sectional area (CSAcm2/BSAm2) ≤ 0.7 and reintervention. There was no significant difference in 4C or SAXM strain in patients requiring reintervention. LVOTO reoperation was not associated with preoperative clinical or surgical variables but was associated with smaller LVOT on preoperative echo and smaller LVOT, smaller AV annular diameter, and increased LVOT velocity at discharge.

Does lung procurement and exposure to Perfadex impact heart transplantation outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Some studies have shown increased incidence of Primary Graft Dysfunction (PGD) after heart and lung procurement for heart transplant recipients. There have been limited investigations of the impact of lung procurement on heart procurement and the potential effects of the exposure to the type of lung preservation solution, the volume of the lung preservation solution and adequacy of decompression of the heart during heart and lung procurement and the impact on heart transplant outcomes. METHODS: Adult heart transplant recipients in the UNOS database recorded from January 1, 2000 to June 30, 2022 formed the study cohort. Any heart that was procured with a lung team that utilized Perfadex preservation solution (XVIVO, Gothenburg, Sweden) was classified as exposed to Perfadex and otherwise classified as not exposed to Perfadex. Lung procurements performed with a preservation solution other than Perfadex or unknown were excluded (n = 2486). Simple comparisons were made with t-tests or chi-squared tests. Logistic regression models were used to predict 30 day and 1 year survival. Accelerated failure time models were employed to analyze time to death and time to rejection. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 34 192 heart transplants, of which 21 928 donors were not exposed to Perfadex (64.1%). There were statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in donor characteristics for these groups including in donor age (33.34 ± 11.01 not exposed vs. 30.70 ± 10.69 exposed; p < .001), diabetic donor (4% not exposed vs. 3% exposed; p = .004), and ischemic time (3.28 ± 1.09 h not exposed vs. 3.24 ± 1.05 h exposed; p = .002). In adjusted models, for all included donors, Perfadex exposure was associated with increased short term mortality, but no long term difference (1 year mortality OR 1.10, p = .014). CONCLUSION: Perfadex exposure was associated with increased short-term mortality for heart transplant recipients. Mechanistic investigation is warranted.

Risk Factors for Lower Extremity Minor Amputation Conversion to Major Amputation.

BACKGROUND: Minor lower extremity amputations (LEAs) have become an important part of the limb salvage approach but are not as benign as previously thought. This study investigates the difference in outcome between toe/ray versus midfoot amputations and the risk factors for major amputation conversion associated with each procedure. METHODS: We performed retrospective chart review of foot amputation patients at a single tertiary care medical center with a primary end point of conversion to major amputation and secondary end points of 1-year wound healing and mortality rate. We collected data on relevant medical comorbidities, noninvasive vascular imaging, revascularization, repeat amputations, wound healing rate, and 1-year mortality. Patients were separated into toe/ray amputations versus midfoot amputation groups and compared using descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, Cox proportional hazards, and a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 375 amputations were included in the analysis. 65.3% (245 patients) included toe/ray amputations and 34.7% (130 patients) included midfoot amputations. We compared these 2 cohorts with regard to their rate of conversion to repeat minor and/or major amputation in addition to overall mortality. The toe/ray group underwent more repeat minor amputations within 1 year after index amputation (34.7% vs. 21.5%, P = 0.008) and wound healing (epithelization) at 90 days was also higher in this group. The midfoot group had a higher conversion to major LEA within 1 year on univariate analysis (20.8 vs. 6.9%, P < 0.001). Overall 1-year mortality was 6.17% and there was no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: While there is a consistency with previous studies that found no significant overall difference in mortality between types of minor LEA, we have extended this previous work by demonstrating the independent risk factors for conversion to major amputation between types of minor LEA. Comparing these 2 groups will assist surgeons in choosing the appropriate level of amputations and will enhance patient's understanding of their chance of wound healing and risk of repeat amputation.

Influence of preoperative and intraoperative factors on recovery after aortic root surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of intraoperative factors relative to preoperative risk factors on recovery after aortic root replacement (ARR). METHODS: Retrospective review of baseline and intraoperative characteristics was performed of 822 patients at our Aortic Center from 2005 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were all patients age 18 and older who underwent ARR at our institution from 2005 to 2019. The primary endpoint was the aggregate outcome of "failure to achieve uneventful recovery (FUR)," as previously defined. RESULTS: In total, 207 (25%) patients experienced FUR. The following preoperative and intraoperative variables were significantly associated with FUR in the multivariable analysis: cardiopulmonary bypass time (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02) open chest management (OR 5.67, 95% CI 2.65-12.1), ejection fraction (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04), chronic kidney disease > stage 3a (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.54-3.63), bicuspid aortic valve (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.21-1.96), and female sex (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.06-1.61). Cardiopulmonary bypass time and open chest management were among the top three partial R2 contributors to the logistic regression model variance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest efficacy in using intraoperative parameters to predict postoperative outcomes after ARR.

Outcomes and Predictors of Morbidity after Carotid Body Tumor Resection.

BACKGROUND: Carotid body tumors (CBTs) are uncommon neuroendocrine tumors at the carotid bifurcation treated with resection. The goal of this study was to examine patient outcomes after CBT resection and establish predictors of morbidity. METHODS: Patients undergoing CBT resection were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database over 11 years. Demographics, past medical history, preoperative labs, procedural details, morbidity and mortality were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of morbidity. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2020, 668 CBT resections were identified. The majority of patients were female (65%) and White (72%) with a mean age of 56 (standard deviation [SD] ± 16). Average body mass index (BMI) was 29.9 (SD ± 7.1). Arterial resection occurred in 81 patients (12%). 6% of patients experienced morbidity, most commonly re-operation (2.4%). Morbidity was more common in patients with higher BMI (33.1 vs. 29.7, P = 0.005), chronic obstruction pulmonary disease (10% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.012), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (P = 0.005), and lower albumin (3.7 vs. 4, P = 0.016). Morbidity was not increased with arterial resection (P = 1) or based on length of operation (P = 0.169). Morbidity did not impact mortality (P = 0.06) though led to longer length of stay [LOS] (8 days vs. 2.4, P < 0.001). On MLR, preoperative BMI was the only risk factor for morbidity (odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.1, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: CBT resection is very well tolerated with low stroke rates, morbidity, and mortality. Arterial resection leads to increased transfusion requirements and LOS but did not increase stroke rates, mortality, or overall morbidity. Within the NSQIP database, preoperative BMI was the only predictor of postoperative morbidity, which leads to significantly longer LOS.

Strategies for the Surgical Management of Highly Aggressive Williams Syndrome Aortopathy: A Three Case Report.

Severe aortopathy in Williams syndrome can sometimes present with an initial ascending aortic pathology, followed in short order by more distal multilevel obstruction and recurrence requiring reintervention. In this series, an early, comprehensive surgical approach using a combination of various access and perfusion strategies yielded excellent long-term results.

Acute complication posttransplant: primary allograft dysfunction.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart transplant is the gold standard treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure, improving both quality of life and survival. Despite advances in donor and recipient management, primary graft dysfunction (PGD) remains the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in the early posttransplant period. This review summarizes recent discoveries in the underlying pathophysiology, risk prediction and management of PGD. RECENT FINDINGS: The incidence of PGD appears to be rising and it is not clear whether this is due to better recognition or secular changes in transplant practice. The utilization of donation after circulatory death organs for transplant is a further consideration for the development of PGD. Organ transport systems and preservation techniques may help to prevent PGD. As some of the risk factors for developing PGD remain modifiable, we summarize the current evidence for prevention and management of PGD. SUMMARY: A better understanding will allow us to appropriately manage donors and recipients to reduce the complex interactions that lead to PGD. The development of an international consortium provides the opportunity for deep phenotyping and development of contemporary risk prediction models for PGD, which may reduce the incidence and consequent early mortality associated with heart transplantation.

Do outcomes for heart transplantation differ based on donor and recipient race?

PURPOSE: There are limited data examining the impact of both donor and recipient race on outcomes following orthotopic heart transplant (OHT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between donor and recipient race and OHT outcomes. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was retrospectively reviewed from January 2000 to March 2018 for donor hearts. A comparison was conducted based on donor and recipient race (White, Black, Hispanic, Other/Unknown). Races for which there were limited numbers were excluded from the analysis (Asian, n = 1292; American Indian, n = 132; Pacific Islander, n = 132, Multiple ethnicities, n = 225). The primary endpoint was survival at 30 days, 1 year survival, and post-transplant rejection. Logistic and Cox models were used to quantify survival endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 41 841 OHT were included. Of the recipients, 29 894 (71%) were White, 8475 (20%) were Black, and 3472 (8%) were Hispanic. Of the donors 27 783 (66%) were White, 6277 (15%) were Black, 6576 (16%) were Hispanic, and 1205 (3%) were Unknown/Other race. In a comparison of recipient demographics, White recipients were older (54.09 ± 12.21 years) compared to Black (49.44 ± 12.83 years) and Hispanic (49.97 ± 13.27 years) recipients. All other differences between groups were not clinically significant. Black recipients were more likely to receive a heart with an "urgent" status (probability .80) compared to White (.73) and Hispanic (.75) recipients (p < .001). Hispanic recipients were more likely to receive a transplant when listed as "non-urgent" (Probability .47) compared to White (.37) and Black (.30) recipients (p < .001). In terms of outcomes, compared to White recipients, Hispanic patients experienced a decreased 30-day survival (OR 1.27; p = .011) and 1-year survival (OR 1.17; p = .016). In comparing Donor/Recipient combinations compared to a White Donor/White Recipient combination, overall survival was decreased in White donor/African American recipient (HR 1.36; p < .001), African American donor/African American recipient (HR 1.41; p < .001) and Hispanic donor/African American recipient (HR 1.30; p < .001) combinations (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: African American and Hispanic recipients have decreased survival compared to White recipients after heart transplant. The African American donor does not decrease survival. Racial differences still exist in donor and recipient characteristics and recipient outcomes after OHT. Increasing the donor pool for all races and ethnicities would potentially benefit all recipients. Continued study is warranted in order to minimize these differences among recipients and identify factors that could be contributing to decreased survival, in order to optimize outcomes for African American and Hispanic recipients post-transplant and eliminate disparities.