Mitral valve surgery following failed MitraClip implantation.

Mitral valve disruption is a rare but serious complication of MitraClip insertion. This review provides an update on surgical interventions following MitraClip failure, and discusses possible valve injuries and surgical approaches.

Twenty-five year outcomes following composite graft aortic root replacement.

BACKGROUND: Operative choices for aortic root disease include traditional root replacement with a composite valved graft as well as various valve-sparing and root repair procedures. OBJECTIVES: To report our experience with traditional composite graft aortic root replacement by a single surgeon over a 25-year period in 449 patients, focusing on long-term survival and freedom from late reoperation and adverse events. METHODS: The coronary button technique was used in all patients. Mean age was 56.1 ± 14.0 years (range 14-87) with 83% males (373/449). Valve prosthesis was mechanical in 343 (76%) and bioprosthetic in 106 (24%). A modified Cabrol procedure (Dacron coronary graft) was employed in 10% (45/449) and concomitant coronary artery bypass graft in 10.9% (49/449). There were 15.8% (71/449) urgent/emergent and 8.2% (37/449) redo procedures. Survival follow-up was 100%. Mean follow-up was 7.0 ± 5.1 years (range 0.1-24.8). RESULTS: Operative mortality occurred in 14 patients (3.1%) and was 2.2% (9/418) in non-dissection and 1.9% (7/361) in elective first-time operations. Stroke and re-exploration for bleeding occurred in nine (2.0%) and 20 (4.5%) patients, respectively. Major late events included bleeding in 2.5% (11/435) and thromboembolism in 1.1% (5/435). At 5, 10, and 20 years, freedom from major events and reoperations on the root were 97.8, 95.4, and 94.39%, and 99.0, 99.0, and 97.9%, respectively. Survival in patients aged <60 years was 92.0, 90.1, and 79.8% at five, 10, and 20 years versus 88.4, 67.9, and 42.6% in patients aged ≥60 years (p = 0.001). Compared with age- and gender-matched controls, survival was not significantly different (p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Composite graft aortic root replacement is associated with low operative risk, excellent long-term survival, and low incidence of reoperation and late events.

Accuracy of the "Thumb-Palm Test" for Detection of Ascending Aortic Aneurysm.

We have noticed, in caring for thousands of patients with ascending aortic aneurysm (AscAA), that the "thumb palm test" is often positive (with the thumb crossing beyond the edge of the palm). It is not known how accurate this test may be. We conducted the thumb-palm test in 305 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with intra-operative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for a variety of disorders: ascending aneurysm in 59 (19.4%) and non-AscAA disease in 246 (80.6%) (including CABG, valve repair, and descending aortic aneurysm). The TEE provided a precise ascending aortic diameter. The thumb palm test gave us a discrete, binary positive or negative result. We calculated the accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the thumb palm test in determining presence or absence of AscAA (defined as ascending aortic diameter > 3.8cm). Maximal ascending aortic diameters ranged from 2.0 to 6.6 cm (mean 3.48). 93 patients (30.6%) were classified as having an AscAA and 212 (69.4%) as not having an AscAA. 10 patients (3.3%) had a positive thumb-palm test and 295 patients (96.7%) did not. Sensitivity of the test (proportion of diseased patients correctly classified) was low (7.5%), but specificity (proportion of non-diseased patients correctly classified) was very high (98.5%). This study supports the utility of the thumb-palm test in evaluation for ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm. That is to say, a positive test implies a substantial likelihood of harboring an ascending aortic aneurysm. A negative test does not exclude an aneurysm. In other words, the majority of aneurysm patients do not manifest a positive thumb-palm sign, but patients who do have a positive sign have a very high likelihood of harboring an ascending aneurysm. We suggest that the thumb-palm test be part of the standard physical examination, especially in patients with suspicion of ascending aortic aneurysm (e.g. those with a positive family history).

Extensive unroofing of myocardial bridge: A case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial bridge is defined as a segment of a coronary artery that takes an intramyocardial course. The presence of myocardial bridge has been observed in as many as 40%-80% of cases on autopsy, angiographically from 0.5% to 16.0%, and often asymptomatic. However, it has been associated with angina, coronary spasm, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, syncope, sudden cardiac arrest, and death. Conflicting opinions exist on the timing of surgical intervention for myocardial bridge. METHODS: We present an unusual case of a young female, with prior aortic surgery, who had refractory chest pain despite optimal medical therapy. Stress testing revealed anterior ischemia. Cardiac catherization showed myocardial bridge of the left anterior descending artery with significant compromise of blood flow (fractional flow reserve = 0.75 with adenosine). We proceeded with surgery. Intraoperatively, we found an unusually long (10-cm) intramyocardial segment of the left anterior descending artery which was managed by surgically unroofing. Our patient felt better post procedure. Repeat cardiac catheterization showed no further narrowing of the left anterior descending artery with a fractional flow reserve of 0.87 in its distal segment. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Myocardial bridge is present mostly in female patients (74.5%), with median age at 56.2 years and mostly involving the left anterior descending artery (77.2%). The average length of myocardial bridge is 21.85 ± 16.10 mm (range: 5-70 mm). Our case is unique as the involved myocardial bridge was 10 cm in length, the longest ever reported. Multiple imaging modality revealed significant coronary insufficiency, with a subsequent clinical and angiographic improvement upon unroofing of the culprit coronary vessel. CONCLUSION: Management decision on myocardial bridge remains controversial. This is a case of the longest symptomatic myocardial bridge, with a subsequent improvement post unroofing.

Advances in managing the noninfected open chest after cardiac surgery: Negative-pressure wound therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare safety and clinical effectiveness of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with traditional wound therapy for managing noninfected open chests with delayed sternal closure after cardiac surgery. METHODS: From January 2000 to July 2015, 452 of 47,325 patients who underwent full sternotomy left the operating room with a noninfected open chest (0.96%), managed using NPWT in 214-with frequency of use rapidly increasing to near 100%-and traditionally in 238. Predominant indications for open-chest management were uncontrolled coagulopathy or hemodynamic compromise on attempted chest closure. Weighted propensity-score matching was used to assess in-hospital complications and time-related survival. RESULTS: NPWT and traditionally managed patients had similar high-risk preoperative profiles. Most underwent reoperations (63% of the NPWT group and 57% of the traditional group), and 21% versus 25% were emergency procedures. Reexplorations for bleeding were less common with NPWT versus traditional wound therapy (n = 63 [29%] vs 104 [44%], P = .002). Median duration of open-chest to definitive sternal closure was 3.5 days for NPWT versus 3.1 for traditionally managed patients (P[log rank] = .07). Seven patients (3.3%) were converted from NPWT to traditional therapy because of hemodynamic intolerance and 6 (2.5%) from traditional to NPWT. No NPWT-related cardiovascular injuries occurred. Among matched patients, NPWT was associated with better early survival (61% vs 44% at 6 months; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: NPWT is safe and effective for managing noninfected open chests after cardiac surgery. By facilitating open-chest management and potentially improving outcomes, it has become our therapy of choice and perhaps has lowered our threshold for leaving the chest open after cardiac surgery.

Do Familial Aortic Dissections Tend to Occur at the Same Age?

BACKGROUND: Prediction of the age at aortic dissection for family members of aortic dissection patients would enhance early detection and clinical management. We sought to determine whether these dissections tend to cluster by age in family members of the dissection patients. METHODS: Ages at dissection were examined, including 51 sporadic dissectors (one dissection in family) and 39 familial dissectors (two or more dissections in family) from 16 families. Differences between sporadic and familial dissectors and relationships between ages at dissection in family members were analyzed by linear regression and clustering analysis. RESULTS: Age at dissection was significantly younger in familial versus sporadic dissectors (54.1 ± 15.2 years versus 63.1±12.4 years, p = 0.002). Regression analysis of pairs of family member ages at dissection found a moderately close linear fit (R2 = 0.35). Cluster analysis indicated that age at onset of family dissectors increases as age of proband dissector increases. More than 50% of familial dissections occurred within 10 years of the median onset age for any given age decade. For familial dissectors with onset age of 30 to 49 years, 71% of other family member dissections also occurred at age 30 to 49 years, and no dissections occurred above the age of 63 years. For familial dissectors with onset age of 60 to 79 years, 80% of other family member dissections occurred beyond the age of 50 years. CONCLUSIONS: Familial dissections occur earlier than sporadic dissections. Dissections cluster by age in families, and age at onset can predict the age of other dissectors. This finding argues for consideration of prophylactic resection of an aneurysm in family members approaching the age at onset of prior thoracic aortic dissection.

Positive family history of aortic dissection dramatically increases dissection risk in family members.

OBJECTIVES: Although family members of patients with aortic dissection (AoD) are believed to be at higher risk of AoD, the prognostic value of family history (FH) of aortic dissection (FHAD) in family members of patients with AoD has not been studied rigorously. We seek examine how much a positive FHAD increases the risk of developing new aortic dissection (AoD) among first-degree relatives. METHODS: Patients with AoD at our institution were analyzed for information of FHAD. Positive FHAD referred to that AoD occurred in index patient and one or more first-degree relatives. Negative FHAD was defined as the condition in which only one case of AoD (the index patient) occurred in the family. The age at AoD, exposure years in adulthood before AoD, and annual probability of AoD among first-degree relatives were compared between patients with negative and positive FHADs. RESULTS: FHAD was positive in 32 and negative in 68 among the 100 AoD patients with detailed family history information. Mean age at dissection was 59.9±14.7years. Compared to negative FHAD, patients with positive FHAD dissected at significantly younger age (54.7±16.8 vs 62.4±13.0years, p=0.013), had more AoD events in first-degree relatives (2.3±0.6 vs 1.0±0.0, p<0.001), and shorter exposure years per AoD event (18.3±6.7 vs 43.1±8.5, p<0.001). Annual probability of AoD per first-degree relative was 2.77 times higher in patients with positive than negative FHADs (0.0100±0.0057 vs 0.0036±0.0014, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A positive FHAD confers a significantly increased risk of developing aortic dissection on family members, with a higher annual probability of aortic dissection, a shorter duration of "exposure time" before dissection occurs and a lower mean age at time of dissection.