Long Term Outcomes Following Freestyle Stentless Aortic Bioprosthesis Implantation: An Australian Experience.

BACKGROUND: The Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis (FSB) has been demonstrated to be a durable prosthesis in the aortic position. We present data following Freestyle implantation for up to 10 years post-operatively and compare this with previously published results. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of 237 patients following FSB implantation occurred at five Australian hospitals. Follow-up data included clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. RESULTS: The cohort was 81.4% male with age 63.2±13.0 years and was followed for a mean of 2.4±2.3 years (range 0-10.9 years, total 569 patient-years). The FSB was implanted as a full aortic root replacement in 87.8% patients. The 30-day all cause mortality was 4.2% (2.0% for elective surgery). Cumulative survival at one, five and 10 years was 91.7±1.9%, 82.8±3.8% and 56.5±10.5%, respectively. Freedom from re-intervention at one, five and 10 years was 99.5±0.5%, 91.6±3.7% and 72.3±10.5%, respectively. At latest echocardiographic review (mean 2.3±2.1 years post-operatively), 92.6% had trivial or no aortic regurgitation. Predictors of post-operative mortality included active endocarditis, acute aortic dissection and peripheral vascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: We report acceptable short and long term outcomes following FSB implantation in a cohort of comparatively younger patients with thoracic aortic disease. The durability of this bioprosthesis in the younger population remains to be confirmed.

Replacement of the aortic root with a composite valve-graft conduit: risk factor analysis in 246 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Composite valve-graft (CVG) replacement of the aortic root is a well-studied and recognised treatment for various aortic root conditions, including valvular disease with associated aortopathy. There have been few previous studies of the procedure in large numbers in an Australian setting. METHOD: From January 2006 to June 2013, 246 successive patients underwent CVG root replacements at our institution. Mean age was 56.8 years, 85.4% were male, and 87 had evidence of bicuspid aortic valve. Indications for operation included ascending aortic aneurysm in 222 patients, annuloaortic ectasia in 67 patients, and aortic dissection in 38 patients. RESULTS: The overall unit 30-day mortality was 5.7%, including: elective 30-day mortality of 2.2%, and emergent 30-day mortality of 17.2%. Statistically significant multivariate predictors of 30-day mortality were: acute aortic dissection (OR=20.07), peripheral vascular disease (OR=11.17), new ventricular tachycardia (OR=30.17), re-operation for bleeding (OR=14.42), concomitant mitral stenosis (OR=68.30), and cerebrovascular accident (OR=144.85). CONCLUSIONS: Low postoperative mortality in our series matches closely with results from similar sized international studies, demonstrating that this procedure can be performed with low risk in centres with sufficient experience in the operative procedure.

Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarians.

BACKGROUND: In the era of TAVI, there has been renewed interest in the outcomes of conventional AVR for high-risk patients. This study evaluates the short- and long-term outcomes of AVR in octogenarians. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all 117 patients aged ≥ 80 years who underwent AVR, (isolated AVR (n = 60) or AVR+CABG (n = 57),) from August 2005 to February 2011 at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Strathfield Hospital. Univariate analysis was used to compare pre- and post-operative variables between younger and older subgroups (age 80-84, n = 82; age 85-89, n = 35 respectively). Long-term survival data was obtained from the National Death Index at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The median age was 83 years (interquartile range, 81-85 years), 46.2% were females, the median EuroSCORE was 10.89% (interquartile range, 8.20-16.45%) and 16.2% of patients had a EuroSCORE ≥ 20%. The difference between subgroups for history of stroke was significant (p = .042). Post-operative complications included pleural effusion (12.8%), new renal failure (4.3%) and respiratory failure (4.3%). The rate of major adverse events was extremely low, with no cases of stroke. The 30-day mortality rate was 3.4%. There was a significant difference between subgroups for 30-day mortality (p = .007). 38.9% of patients were discharged home, 11.5% were transferred to another hospital and 38.9% spent a period of time in a rehabilitation institution post discharge. In terms of long-term survival, the six-month, one-year and three-year survival was 95.6%, 87.6% and 58.4% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical AVR yields excellent short- and long-term outcomes for potentially high-risk, elderly patients.

Evolution in the techniques and outcomes of aortic arch surgery: a 22 year single centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Aortic arch replacement is a complicated and high risk procedure. There have been many advances over recent years. We review the changes in our unit's techniques and outcomes over the past 22 years. METHODS: Data were collated from databases and medical records for all patients who underwent aortic arch replacement surgery from January 1989 to December 2010. The patients were divided into two groups - Group A (1989-2005) and Group B (2006-2010). Data were analysed to compare early and late series patients' outcomes. Logistic regression was used to identify variables that predicted mortality. RESULTS: Seventy-five eligible patients (56 males; mean age: 57.5 years; Group A: 40, Group B 35) were identified. There were great changes in the technique and the methods of cerebral protection. The overall mortality rate was 30.7% - Group A: 50% and Group B: 8.6% (p<0.001). Overall permanent neurological dysfunction was 23.7% - Group A: 40% and Group B: 11.8% (p=0.012). Cardiovascular disease and circulatory arrest time were significant predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Increased experience and volume and advances in techniques over 22 years have resulted in major improvements in outcomes for patients having aortic arch replacement, allowing the procedure to be performed with greatly improved outcomes.

Outcomes of aortic arch replacement surgery after previous cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Aortic arch replacement is a potentially high-risk operation and in the re-operative setting has been found to be a risk factor for poor outcome, yet there is a dearth of published data specifically on this topic. The aim of the study was to review our unit's outcomes in this re-operative setting. METHOD: Data were collated for all patients who underwent aortic arch replacement surgery after previous cardiac surgery from January 1988 to November 2011. The patients were divided based primarily on elective versus non-elective and also early (≤2005) and late (≥2006) series. RESULTS: Twenty-seven eligible patients (22 male; median age: 53.0 years; elective: 14, non-elective: 13) were identified. There was a mean period of 14.5 years between the first operation and the subsequent aortic arch replacement. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 22.2% - 0% elective and 46.2% non-elective (P = 0.004). Overall permanent neurological dysfunction was 21.7% - 28.6% elective and 11.1% non-elective (P = 0.463). There were 11 early-series patients and 16 late-series patients. For early-series patients, 90.9% were non-elective versus 18.8% in the late-series patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 54.5% early series versus 0% late series. CONCLUSION: Aortic arch replacement is high risk in the re-operative setting. These risks are even greater for non-elective procedures. This highlights the need for aggressive first-time surgery to reduce re-operative procedures and good long-term follow-up programmes to allow elective procedures if required.