REBOA Improves Outcomes in Hybrid Surgery for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Despite advancements in diagnostic methods and emergency interventions, mortality rates of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) continue to remain high. To address this issue, the resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) technique has been designed to provide temporary control of bleeding. We aimed to compare the impact of the REBOA technique during open aortic surgery for rAAA. METHODS: Between January 2014 and November 2021, 53 consecutive patients (46 males, 7 females; mean age 71.9 ± 7.9 years; range 51-89 years) who underwent emergency open aortic surgery for rAAA were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into REBOA (21 patients) and non-REBOA (32 patients) groups. The primary outcomes were postoperative 24-hr and 30-day mortality. The secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) stay, in-hospital stay, bleeding, postoperative renal failure, bowel ischemia, and transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke rate. RESULTS: The REBOA group showed a significant reduction in mortality rates at both 24 hr (9.5% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.029) and 30 days (14.2% vs. 43.7%, P = 0.035) compared to the non-REBOA group. In-hospital stay (12.8 ± 3.48 vs. 15.6 ± 4.74 days, P = 0.02) and ICU stay (2.42 ± 2.08 vs. 5.09 ± 5.79 days, P = 0.048) were shorter among the REBOA group. Total procedure time and bleeding were reduced among the REBOA group without significant differences in terms of postoperative renal failure, bowel ischemia, and TIA/stroke rate. CONCLUSIONS: The REBOA group demonstrated significantly improved survival rates compared to the non-REBOA group, without a significant difference in complication rates. REBOA is considered a less invasive option compared to the traditional method for open aortic cross-clamping. This study demonstrated that the use of REBOA may be considered as a first-line treatment option for open surgery in cases of rAAA particularly when an off-the-shelf endovascular aneurysm repair device is not suitable.

Optimizing aortic valve prosthesis selection in patients with obesity: Institutional experience with multidisciplinary perspective.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve diseases are life-threatening conditions with increasing prevalence worldwide. Risk factors include gender, age, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes. Obesity is closely related to these risk factors and has been linked to a higher risk of developing aortic valve diseases. However, there is no specific guideline for managing aortic valve disease in patients with obesity, and the choice of valve type remains uncertain. METHODS: A total of 130 patients with obesity who met the inclusion criteria underwent surgical aortic valve replacement. The patients were divided into two groups based on the type of prosthesis used. Among the study cohort, 50 patients received a bioprosthetic valve, while 80 patients received a mechanical valve. We compared these groups in terms of perioperative characteristics and follow-up results. Statistical significance was determined using a p-value threshold of 0.05. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, or cardiac comorbidities between the two groups. Preoperative blood results and echo findings also showed no significant differences. Intraoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes, including mortality and acute kidney injury, did not differ significantly between the groups. In addition, BHVG patients had shorter ICU stays compared to MHVG patients without significance. CONCLUSION: Deliberate consideration is crucial when selecting valves for obese patients, particularly those with class II obesity. This is due to the potential influence of obesity on valve types, as well as the need to account for the possibility of bariatric surgery and its potential effects.