Vitamin D and prebiotics for intestinal health in cystic fibrosis: Rationale and design for a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 2 x 2 trial of administration of prebiotics and cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) (Pre-D trial) in adults with cystic fibrosis.

Individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) have dysfunctional intestinal microbiota and increased gastrointestinal (GI) inflammation also known as GI dysbiosis. It is hypothesized that administration of high-dose cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) together with a prebiotic (inulin) will be effective, and possibly additive or synergistic, in reducing CF-related GI and airway dysbiosis. Thus, a 2 x 2 factorial design, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, pilot and feasibility, clinical trial was proposed to test this hypothesis. Forty adult participants with CF were block-randomized into one of four groups: 1) high-dose oral vitamin D3 (50,000 IU weekly) plus oral prebiotic placebo daily; 2) oral prebiotic (12 g inulin daily) plus oral placebo vitamin D3 weekly; 3) combined oral vitamin D3 weekly and oral prebiotic inulin daily; and 4) oral vitamin D3 placebo weekly and oral prebiotic placebo. The primary endpoints included 12-week changes in the microbial bacterial communities, gut and airway microbiota richness and diversity before and after the intervention. This pilot study examined whether vitamin D3 with or without prebiotics supplementation was feasible, changed airway and gut microbiota, and reduced dysbiosis, which in turn, may improve health outcomes and quality of life of patients with CF.

Acute Type B Intramural Hematoma: Novel Insights in the Endovascular Era.

BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology and behavior of acute type B intramural hematoma (TBIMH) is poorly understood. The purpose of this study is to characterize the pathophysiology, fate, and outcomes of TBIMH in the endovascular era. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a US Aortic Database identified 70 patients with TBIMH from 2008 to 2022. Patients were divided into groups and analyzed based upon subsequent management: early thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR; Group 1) or hospital discharge on optimal medical therapy (OMT) (Group 2). RESULTS: Of 70 total patients, 43% (30/70) underwent TEVAR (Group 1) and 57% (40/70) were discharged on OMT (Group 2). There were no significant differences in age, demographics, or comorbidities between groups. Indications for TEVAR in Group 1 were as follows: 1) Penetrating atheroscletoic ulcer (PAU) or ulcer-like projection (n = 26); 2) Descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (n = 3); or 3) Progression to type B aortic dissection (TBAD) (n = 2). Operative mortality was zero. No patient suffered a stroke or spinal cord ischemia. During the follow-up period, 50% (20/40) of Group 2 patients required delayed surgical intervention, including TEVAR in 14 patients and open repair in 6 patients. Indications for surgical intervention were as follows: 1) Development of a PAU / ulcer-like projection (n = 13); 2) Progression to TBAD (n = 3), or 3) Concomitant aneurysmal disease (n = 4). Twenty patients did not require surgical intervention. Of the initial cohort, 71% of patients required surgery, 9% progressed to TBAD, and 19% had regression or stability of TBIMH with OMT alone. CONCLUSIONS: The most common etiology of TBIMH is an intimal defect. Progression to TBAD and intramural hematoma regression without an intimal defect occurs in a small percentage of patients. An aggressive strategy with endovascular therapy and close surveillance for TBIMH results in excellent short-term and long-term outcomes.

Vitamin D and Prebiotics for Intestinal Health in Cystic Fibrosis: Rationale and design for a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 2 × 2 trial of administration of prebiotics and cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) (Pre-D Trial) in adults with cystic fibrosis.

Individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) have dysfunctional intestinal microbiota and increased gastrointestinal (GI) inflammation also known as GI dysbiosis. It is hypothesized that administration of high-dose cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) together with a prebiotic (inulin) will be effective, and possibly additive or synergistic, in reducing CF-related GI dysbiosis and improving intestinal functions. Thus, a 2 × 2 factorial design, placebo-controlled, double-blind, clinical trial was proposed to test this hypothesis. Forty adult participants with CF will be block-randomized into one of four groups: 1) high-dose oral vitamin D3 (50,000 IU weekly) plus oral prebiotic placebo daily; 2) oral prebiotic (12 g inulin daily) plus oral placebo vitamin D3 weekly; 3) combined oral vitamin D3 weekly and oral prebiotic inulin daily; and 4) oral vitamin D3 placebo weekly and oral prebiotic placebo. The primary endpoints will include 12-week changes in the reduced relative abundance of gammaproteobacteria, and gut microbiota richness and diversity before and after the intervention. This clinical study will examine whether vitamin D3 with or without prebiotics will improve intestinal health and reduce GI dysbiosis, which in turn, should improve health outcomes and quality of life of patients with CF.

Acute type A aortic syndromes: outcomes are independent of aortic root/valve management.

Purpose: Clinical outcomes following various surgical intervention strategies for aortic root and valve pathology during repair of acute type A aortic syndromes were studied and compared. Methods: From 2004 to 2019, 634 patients underwent acute type A aortic repair. Patients were divided into 4 groups: Valve Resuspension (n = 456), Isolated Valve Replacement (AVR) (n = 24), Valve and Root Replacement (ROOT) (n = 97), and Valve Sparing Root Replacement (VSRR) (n = 57). The primary endpoint was midterm survival and multivariable risk factor analysis was performed. Results: The mean age was 55.4 ± 13 years, 424 (67%) were male, and overall early mortality was 12%. Early mortality was 13%, 8%, 11%, and 7% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.43. Five-year survival was 74%, 86%, 73%, and 84% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.46. There was no difference in late stroke, renal failure, heart block, and late bleeding (p > 0.05 for all). At late follow-up, AVR and ROOT patients had a higher mean gradient versus Valve Resuspension and VSRR patients, p < 0.0001. For the total cohort, risk factors for late mortality included preoperative peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio (HR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.4, p = 0.009) and preoperative dialysis (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-6.1, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Mid-term survival following repair of acute type A aortic dissection is not independently associated with a specific type of aortic valve intervention. Native valve preservation leads to acceptable mid-term valve hemodynamics and should be the preferred therapy in this emergent clinical setting. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01602-8.

Upper Hemisternotomy Versus Full Sternotomy for Replacement of the Supracoronary Ascending Aorta and Aortic Valve.

OBJECTIVE: Upper hemisternotomy (UHS) for supracoronary ascending aorta replacement (scAAR) with concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR) results in less trauma and potentially faster convalescence compared with full sternotomy (FS). Direct head-to-head studies are lacking. We compared a group of UHS patients with a matched group of FS patients undergoing scAAR and AVR. METHODS: There were 198 patients who underwent scAAR and AVR procedures by a single surgeon between 1999 and 2020. After matching 6 preoperative characteristics, there were 50 UHS and 50 FS patients. Patients who required acute type A aortic dissection repair, reoperations, concomitant procedures, or hypothermic circulatory arrest were excluded. RESULTS: In the matched sample, the hospital mortality rate was 1% (1 of 100). The median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 150 (interquartile range [IQR], 131 to 172) min and 164.5 (IQR, 138 to 190) min, respectively, for the UHS and FS groups (P = 0.08). The median aortic cross-clamp time was 121 (IQR, 107 to 139) min during UHS and 131 (IQR, 115 to 159) min during FS (P = 0.05). The median ventilation time was 7 (IQR, 3 to 14) h versus 17 (IQR, 10 to 24) h, respectively, after UHS and FS (P = 0.005). The median hospital length of stay was 7 (IQR, 6 to 9) days after UHS and 8 (IQR, 7 to 11) days after FS (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The low morbidity and mortality support the wider use of UHS for scAAR and AVR in appropriately selected patients. Larger studies are needed to confirm these initial findings.

Secondary Analysis of a Dataset to Estimate the Prevalence of Vertebral Subluxation and Its Implications for Health Promotion and Prevention.

Background Vertebral subluxation (VS) is a clinical entity defined as a misalignment of the spine affecting biomechanical and neurological function. The identification and correction of VS is the primary focus of the chiropractic profession. The purpose of this study is to estimate VS prevalence using a sample of individuals presenting for chiropractic care and explore the preventative public health implications of VS through the promotion of overall health and function. Methodology A brief review of the literature was conducted to support an operational definition for VS that incorporated neurologic and kinesiologic exam components. A retrospective, quantitative analysis of a multi-clinic dataset was then performed using this operational definition. Descriptive statistics on patient demographic data included age, gender, and past health history characteristics. In addition to calculating estimates of the overall prevalence of VS, age- and gender-stratified estimates in the different clinics were calculated to allow for potential variations. Results A total of 1,851 patient records from seven chiropractic clinics in four states were obtained. The mean age of patients was 43.48 (SD = 16.8, range = 18-91 years). There were more females (n = 927, 64.6%) than males who presented for chiropractic care. Patients reported various reasons for seeking chiropractic care, including, spinal or extremity pain, numbness, or tingling; headaches; ear, nose, and throat-related issues; or visceral issues. Mental health concerns, neurocognitive issues, and concerns about general health were also noted as reasons for care. The overall prevalence of VS was 78.55% (95% CI = 76.68-80.42). Female and male prevalence of VS was 77.17% and 80.15%, respectively; notably, all per-clinic, age, or gender-stratified prevalences were ≥50%. Conclusions To date, this is the first study of its magnitude and application of an operational definition to estimate the prevalence of VS. Albeit nonrandom, the sample had a broad geographic distribution. The results of this study suggest a high rate of prevalence of VS in a sample of individuals who sought chiropractic care. Concerns about general health and wellness were represented in the sample and suggest chiropractic may serve a primary prevention function in the absence of disease or injury. Further investigation into the epidemiology of VS and its role in health promotion and prevention is recommended.

Acute-on-Chronic Aortic Dissection: Management and Outcomes of the Unstable "Triple-Lumen" Aorta.

BACKGROUND: The impact of acute aortic dissection of the chronically dissected distal aorta is unknown. This study sought to describe the incidence and characteristics of the triple-lumen aortic dissection and its impact on survival. METHODS: From 2010 to 2021, a query of a single-institution aortic database identified 1149 patients with chronic distal aortic dissection. Thirty-three (2.9%) patients with at least 3 distinct lumens and 2 separate "primary" intimal tears were identified by analysis of contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging. Triple-lumen patients were exactly matched with a cohort of double-lumen patients on a 1:1 ratio using 5 preoperative variables, and outcomes between the groups were assessed. RESULTS: The median age at time of initial dissection in patients with a triple-lumen dissection was 46 years. Initial dissection was a type A in 33% and a type B in 67% of patients. The median time from initial dissection to triple-lumen diagnosis was 4.2 years. On diagnosis of the triple-lumen aorta, 85% of patients required urgent aortic repair for rapid growth (36%), aortic diameter ≥55 mm (30%), malperfusion (6%), intractable pain (6%), and rupture/type A (6%). Thirty-day mortality after triple lumen dissection was 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Acute-on-chronic distal dissection resulting in a triple-lumen aorta should be classified as a "complicated" type B dissection as these patients typically have large aneurysms and a high incidence of rapid false lumen expansion requiring urgent surgical repair.

National trends in emergency coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is often omitted from current research, and volumes as well as outcomes are unknown. The purpose of this research is to examine national trends in emergency CABG. METHODS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons national adult cardiac surgical database was queried from 2005 to 2017 for patients who underwent emergency and emergency salvage isolated CABG procedures, and 92 607 patients were included for analysis. Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess time trends, taking into account the clustering effect of region. RESULTS: Over the study period, volumes of emergency and emergency salvage CABG declined from 7991 to 6916 cases/year. Emergency and emergency salvage cases accounted for ∼4.9% of all CABG procedures performed nationwide in 2005 and 4.1% in 2017. The predicted risk of mortality (PROM) declined in the entire patient cohort over time from 12% to 8% (P < 0.0001). Rates of important postoperative morbidities also declined including prolonged intubation, re-exploration for haemorrhage and postoperative pneumonia (P < 0.001). Observed-to-expected mortality rates rose over the study period from 0.81 to 1.06 as the overall PROM declined from 9.3% to 7.6%. Emergency salvage CABG rates also declined over the course of the study from 358 to 323 cases/year. The observed-to-expected ratios for mortality increased for emergency salvage CABG during the study from 1.16 to 1.66, and emergency salvage mortality rates averaged 46.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of patients undergoing emergency and emergency salvage CABG in the USA has declined. Increases in mortality are largely driven by emergency salvage cases, and the PROM algorithm may not accurately reflect the risk involved for these patients.

Bentall versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement for root pathology with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency: a propensity-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (AI) undergoing either a Bentall aortic root replacement (ARR) or valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR). METHODS: A two-centre retrospective database of patients undergoing ARR from 2004 to 2021 was reviewed. Patients <18 years old were excluded. A total of 1527 adult patients underwent Bentall ARR (n = 1150, 75%) or VSRR (n = 377, 25%). Propensity score matching based on preoperative comorbidities was used and 195 matched pairs were identified. Perioperative outcomes, reoperation rates, recurrence of AI and long-term survival were evaluated. RESULTS: ARR patients had more concomitant ascending aortic replacement (35% vs 20%, P = 0.002) and shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (189 vs 233 min, P < 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp (170 vs 204 min, P < 0.0001) times than the VSRR group. Postoperatively, outcomes were similar between groups, including stroke (3% vs 2%) and in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs 2.1%), all P > 0.05. Indications for and rates of reoperation (4% vs 5%, P = 0.62) of the aortic valve and proximal aorta were similar between ARR and VSRR groups with reoperations occurring a mean of 3.2 years after initial root replacement. The ARR group had less moderate-to-severe AI than the VSRR group (1.6% vs 14%, P = 0.002) a mean of 3 years after surgery. Ten-year survival was similar between ARR (84%) and VSRR (82%) (P = 0.69) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both ARR and VSRR can be performed with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe AI.

Mastering the Learning Curve for Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have evaluated the learning curve to achieve competency in robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) but have not identified thresholds for mastery. Robotic-assisted CABG is a minimally invasive alternative to sternotomy CABG. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of this procedure and to estimate the threshold for achieving mastery. METHODS: From 2009 to 2020, 1000 robotic-assisted CABG procedures were performed at a single institution. Robotic left internal mammary artery (LIMA) harvest followed by off-pump, LIMA-left anterior descending artery grafting using a 4-cm thoracotomy was performed. Short-term outcomes were obtained from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database, and long-term follow-up was obtained by telephone questionnaires from dedicated research nurses for all patients more than 1 year from surgery. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 64 ± 11 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 1.1% ± 1.5%, and 76% (758) of patients were men. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 6 patients (0.6%; observed-to-expected ratio, 0.53), 5 patients (0.5%) experienced a postoperative stroke, and postoperative LIMA patency was 97.2% (491/505). Mean procedure time decreased from 195 minutes to 176 minutes, and conversion to sternotomy decreased from 4.4% (22/500) to 1.6% (8/500) after 500 cases. Short-term outcomes suggested expertise was reached between 250 and 500 cases. Long-term follow-up was completed in 97% of patients (873/896) with a median follow-up of 3.9 years (interquartile range, 1.8-5.8), and the overall survival rate was 89% (777). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted CABG can be performed safely with excellent results even during a surgeon's early experience. However the learning curve to achieve mastery is longer than required to achieve competency, with a threshold of approximately 250 to 500 cases.

Routine Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment Into Thoracic Surgery Practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessment is a necessary component of surgical outcome assessment and patient care. This study examined the success of routine PROs assessment in an academic-based thoracic surgery practice. METHODS: PROs, measuring pain intensity, physical function, and dyspnea, were routinely obtained using the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) on all thoracic surgery patients beginning in April 2018 through January 2021. Questionnaires were administered electronically through a web-based platform at home or during the office visit. Completion rates and barriers were measured. RESULTS: A total of 9725 thoracic surgery office visits occurred during this time frame. PROs data were obtained in 6899 visits from a total of 3551 patients. The mean number of questions answered per survey was 22.4 ± 2.2. Overall questionnaire completion rate was 65.7%. A significant decline in survey completion was noted in April 2020, after which adjustments were made to allow for questionnaire completion through a mobile health platform. Overall monthly questionnaire completion rates ranged from 20% (April 2020) to 90% (October 2018). Mean T scores were dyspnea, 41.6 ± 12.3; physical function, 42.7 ± 10.5; and pain intensity, 52.8 ± 10.3. CONCLUSIONS: PROs can be assessed effectively in a thoracic surgery clinic setting, with minimal disruption of clinical activities. Future efforts should focus on facilitating PROs collection from disadvantaged patient populations and scaling implementation across programs.

Recovery of Patient-reported Quality of Life After Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy is an important, but potentially morbid, operation used to treat benign and malignant conditions that may significantly impact patient quality of life (QOL). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are measures of QOL that come directly from patient self-report. This study characterizes patterns of change and recovery in PROs in the first year after esophagectomy. METHODS: Longitudinal QOL scores measuring physical function, pain, and dyspnea were obtained from esophagectomy patients during all clinic visits. PRO scores were obtained using the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System from April 2018 to February 2021. Mean PRO scores over 100 days after surgery were compared with baseline PRO scores using mixed-effects modeling with compound symmetry correlational structure. RESULTS: One hundred three patients with PRO results were identified. Reasons for esophagectomy were malignancy (87.4%), achalasia (5.8%), stricture (5.8%), and dysplasia (1.0%). When comparing mean PRO scores at visits ≤ 50 days after surgery with preoperative PRO scores, physical function scores declined by 27.3% (P < .001), whereas dyspnea severity and pain interference scores had increased by 24.5% (P < .001) and 17.1% (P < .001), respectively. Although recovery occurred over the course of the 100 days after surgery, mean physical function scores and dyspnea scores were still 12.7% (P = .02) and 26.4% (P = .001) worse, respectively, than mean preoperative levels. CONCLUSIONS: Despite declines in QOL scores immediately after esophagectomy, recovery back toward baseline was observed during the first 100 days. These findings are of considerable importance when counseling patients regarding esophagectomy, tracking recovery, and implementing quality improvement initiatives. Further long-term follow-up is needed to determine recovery beyond 100 days.

Intensive Care Unit Bypass for Robotic-Assisted Single-Vessel Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: Fast-track and enhanced recovery after cardiac surgical procedures have shown reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, with unchanged outcomes. However, cost reduction by an ultra-fast-track protocol after minimally invasive cardiac operations, without compromising clinical benefits, has yet to be demonstrated. METHODS: A total of 215 consecutive patients underwent robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting, with 156 preoperatively stratified into conventional ICU recovery vs 59 candidates for a defined ICU-bypass protocol involving recovery room and floor care. Of these, 40 candidates completed the protocol, and 19 had conversion-to-ICU recovery. Because of right-skewed distribution, inpatient cost was log-transformed, and linear regression models were constructed to estimate geometric mean ratios (GMRs) comparing inpatient cost for these groups (conventional ICU recovery, ICU-bypass, conversion-to-ICU recovery), adjusted for The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. RESULTS: Compared with the conventional ICU group, the ICU-bypass group conferred a 15% reduction in total inpatient (GMR, 0.85; P = .0007) and a 14% reduction in total variable direct costs (GMR, 0.86; P = .003). Compared with the conventional ICU group, the ICU-bypass and conversion-to-ICU groups had similar net hospital stay reductions (1.6-1.7 days). Relative to the conventional ICU group, ICU and floor duration were shortened after conversion to ICU, with a trend to reduced costs. Cardiac arrest, 30-day mortality, and stroke were absent, and other key adverse events did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A selective, successful ultra-fast-track ICU-bypass protocol for robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting reduces inpatient cost without affecting short-term outcomes. Conversion-to-ICU recovery also maintains outcomes and trends toward reduced costs.

Redo aortic surgery: Does one versus multiple affect outcomes?

Objective: Redo aortic surgery has a higher risk of morbidity and mortality because it is technically complex due to mediastinal adhesions, infection, and previously implanted prostheses. In this study, we sought to benchmark our single-center experience comparing outcomes in patients undergoing aortic surgery after 1 versus multiple previous cardiac operations. Methods: Between 2004 and 2019, 429 patients underwent redo aortic surgery. They were classified as aortic surgery after 1 previous surgery (first redo surgery, n = 360) and aortic surgery after 2 or more (multiple) previous surgeries (multiple redo surgery, n = 69). Postoperative outcomes and long-term survival were compared, and risk factors for mortality were identified. Results: Thirty-day mortality was lower in first redo surgery compared with multiple redo surgery (12.3% vs 21.7%, P = .03). Age, cardiopulmonary bypass time, intra-aortic balloon pump use, postoperative cerebrovascular accident, absence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, intra-aortic balloon pump, and multiple redo surgery were independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Long-term survival was similar at 15 years. Patients who received first redo surgery were older (57.9 ± 14.0 years vs 50.3 ± 15.8 years, P = .0001) and had a higher incidence of hypertension (84.7% vs 73.9%, P = .02), whereas patients who received multiple redo surgery had a higher incidence of cerebrovascular disease (31.9% vs 20.3%, P = .03). Aortic valve replacement was the most common previous operation with higher incidence in multiple redo surgery. Incidence of previous aortic surgery was similar. Cardiopulmonary bypass (246 ± 67.3 minutes vs 219.9 ± 57.5 minutes, P = .009) and crossclamp times (208.2 ± 51.8 vs 181.9 ± 50.8 minutes, P = .004) were longer in multiple redo surgery. Incidence of reentry injury and balloon pump insertion were similar. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use was higher in multiple redo surgery. Postoperative complications occurred at similar rates, except for higher incidence of dialysis in multiple redo surgery (14.5% vs 7.2%, P = .04). Conclusions: Multiple redo aortic procedures have a higher morbidity and mortality compared with first redo aortic procedures, with linearly increasing short-term mortality risk but similar long-term survival with the number of redo procedures.

True redo-aortic root replacement versus root replacement after any previous surgery.

Objective: The impact of previous aortic root replacement (True-Redo) versus any previous operation (Any-Redo) on outcomes after reoperative aortic root replacement (redo-ROOT) is largely unknown. In this first multi-institutional study, the clinical impact True-Redo versus Any-Redo in the setting of redo-ROOT was reviewed. Methods: From 2004 to 2021, 822 patients underwent redo-ROOT at 2 major academic centers: 638 Any-Redo and 184 True-Redo. Matching based on preoperative demographics and concomitant operations resulted in 174 matched pairs. An independent risk factor analysis was performed to determine risk factors for early and late mortality. Results: Patients in the True-Redo group were younger, at 49.9 ± 15.1 versus 55.3 ± 14.7 years, P < .001. Concomitant operations were largely similar between the 2 groups, P > .05. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time (P < .001) and aortic crossclamp time (P = .03) were longer for True-Redo group. In-hospital mortality was 13% (109) and was without significant difference between groups, P = .41. Ten-year survival was 78% versus 76% for True-Redo versus Any-Redo groups respectively, P = .7. Landmark survival analysis at 4 years' postoperatively on the matched groups found that patients in the True-Redo group had improved survival outcomes (P = .046). Risk factors of in-hospital mortality consisted of older age (P < .0001), lower ejection fraction (P = .02), and male patient (P = .0003). Conclusions: Clinical outcomes following redo-ROOT are excellent. Performance of a True-Redo-ROOT does not result in worse in-hospital morbidity or mortality and has improved survival benefit at midterm follow-up when compared with patients in the Any-Redo group. The decision to perform a redo-ROOT must be taken seriously and must be individualized in a patient-specific manner for optimal outcomes.

Transcaval Versus Transaxillary TAVR in Contemporary Practice: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare transcaval and transaxillary artery access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at experienced medical centers in contemporary practice. BACKGROUND: There are no systematic comparisons of transcaval and transaxillary TAVR access routes. METHODS: Eight experienced centers contributed local data collected for the STS/ACC TVT Registry (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry) between 2017 and 2020. Outcomes after transcaval and axillary/subclavian (transaxillary) access were adjusted for baseline imbalances using doubly robust (inverse propensity weighting plus regression) estimation and compared. RESULTS: Transcaval access was used in 238 procedures and transaxillary access in 106; for comparison, transfemoral access was used in 7,132 procedures. Risk profiles were higher among patients selected for nonfemoral access but similar among patients requiring transcaval and transaxillary access. Stroke and transient ischemic attack were 5-fold less common after transcaval than transaxillary access (2.5% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06-0.72; P = 0.014) compared with transfemoral access (1.7%). Major and life-threatening bleeding (Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 ≥ type 2) were comparable (10.0% vs 13.2%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.26-1.66; P = 0.38) compared with transfemoral access (3.5%), as was blood transfusion (19.3% vs 21.7%; OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.49-2.33; P = 0.87) compared with transfemoral access (7.1%). Vascular complications, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and survival were similar between transcaval and transaxillary access. More patients were discharged directly home and without stroke or transient ischemic attack after transcaval than transaxillary access (87.8% vs 62.3%; OR: 5.19; 95% CI: 2.45-11.0; P < 0.001) compared with transfemoral access (90.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing transcaval TAVR had lower rates of stroke and similar bleeding compared with transaxillary access in a contemporary experience from 8 US centers. Both approaches had more complications than transfemoral access. Transcaval TAVR access may offer an attractive option.

Clinical Outcomes Using Freestyle Valve-Valsalva Graft Composite Conduit for Aortic Root Replacement.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed the clinical outcomes of a novel method of aortic root replacement using a self-constructed tissue valve conduit composed of a Freestyle subcoronary valve sewn into a Valsalva graft. METHODS: From 2005 to 2020, 523 patients had aortic root replacement operations using a self-constructed Freestyle subcoronary-Valsalva graft tissue valve conduit. Median patient age was 62 years (interquartile range [IQR] 54-70), and 430 (82%) were men. Primary outcomes were mortality and the need for reoperation. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for mortality and reoperation. RESULTS: Urgent procedures comprised 48.37% of cases, and 29.26% were reoperative procedures. Concomitant ascending aorta replacement, hemiarch replacement, and total arch replacement were required in 348 (67%), 227 (44%), and 40 (8%) patients, respectively. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were 189 minutes (IQR, 164-218) and 166 minutes (IQR, 145-191), respectively. Early mortality was 7.7% (40), and 5- and 10-year survival rates were 83% and 71%, respectively. At the last echocardiogram follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, degree of aortic insufficiency, and mean aortic valve gradient were significantly improved from baseline (P < .001). Increasing age, peripheral artery disease, tobacco use, increased preoperative creatinine, and prior aortic valve surgery were risk factors for both mortality and the composite outcome (P < .02). CONCLUSIONS: In a complex patient population aortic root replacement using a self-constructed composite tissue valve conduit comprising a Freestyle subcoronary valve-Valsalva graft can be performed with excellent operative and 10-year outcomes. Midterm survival was acceptable, and valve durability was outstanding with an exceedingly low incidence for valve reintervention.

Aortic Arch Management During Acute and Subacute Type A Aortic Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of no arch intervention, hemiarch replacement, and total arch replacement during type A aortic syndromes in a contemporary series. METHODS: From 2004 to 2019, 634 patients have required acute type A dissection repair; these patients were divided into three groups based on type of arch intervention performed: no arch (n = 130), hemiarch (n = 397), and total arch (n = 107). The primary endpoint was mortality; a multivariable risk factor analysis was performed. Secondary endpoints were reoperation and early and late complications. RESULTS: Operative age was 55 ± 14 years for the cohort and was similar between groups (P = .34). The incidence of peripheral artery disease, heart failure, and prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery differed between the groups (P < .05). Median cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, and length of stay were longest for the total arch group (P < .0001). Early mortality was 20%, 10%, and 10% for the no-arch, hemiarch, and total arch groups, respectively (P = .01). Ten-year survival was 54%, 66%, and 65% for the no-arch, hemiarch, and total arch groups, respectively (P = .01). There was no difference in incidence or timing of redo aortic interventions (P > .05). For the entire cohort, risk factors for late mortality included preoperative peripheral artery disease (hazard ratio 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 4.4; P = .009) and preoperative dialysis (hazard ratio 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 6.1; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times, arch intervention was not associated with worse operative or long-term outcome in this series. Patients with peripheral vascular disease and preoperative renal failure remain at highest risk for mortality after type A aortic dissection repair.

Unraveling the impact of time-dependent perioperative variables on 30-day readmission after coronary artery bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Readmission within 30 days of discharge after coronary artery bypass grafting is a measure of quality and a driver of cost in health care. Traditional predictive models use time-independent variables. We developed a new model to predict time to readmission after coronary artery bypass grafting using both time-independent and time-dependent preoperative and perioperative data. METHODS: Adults surviving to discharge after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting at a multi-hospital academic health system from January 2017 to September 2018 were included in this study. Two distinct data sources were used: the institutional cardiac surgical database and the clinical data warehouse, which provided more granular data points for each patient. Patients were divided into training and validation sets in an 80:20 ratio. We evaluated 82 potential risk factors using Cox survival regression and machine learning techniques. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to estimate model predictive accuracy. RESULTS: We trained the model with 21 variables that scored a P value of less than .05 in the univariable analysis. The multivariable model determined 16 significant risk factors, and 6 of them were time-dependent. These included preoperative hemoglobin a1c level, preoperative creatinine, preoperative hematocrit, intraoperative hemoglobin, postoperative creatinine, and postoperative hemoglobin. Area under the receiver operating characteristic values were 0.906 and 0.868 for training and validation sets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Time-dependent perioperative variables in an isolated coronary artery bypass grafting cohort provided better predictive ability to a readmission model. This study was unique in the inclusion of time-dependent covariates in the predictive model for readmission after discharge after coronary artery bypass grafting.

Re-Operative Aortic Arch Surgery in a Contemporary Series.

Re-operative aortic arch operations (REDO) following previous cardiac surgery are challenging procedures associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We investigated post-operative outcomes for patients undergoing REDO and identified risk-factors for mortality in a contemporary series. From 1/2005-6/2018, 365 consecutive patients at an academic center underwent REDO: 257 HEMIARCH and 108 COMPLETE arch (45 stage I elephant trunk, 63 total arch) replacements. Outcomes included mortality and major adverse events. Long-term survival was determined with Kaplan-Meier analysis, and risk-factors for mortality were assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Operative mortality for the entire cohort was 6.8%, and rates of stroke, cardiac arrest, and renal failure were 6.0%, 7.4%, and 10.4%. Compared to HEMIARCH, COMPLETE patients had an increased incidence of renal failure requiring dialysis (15.7% vs 8.2%, p = 0.031) and re-exploration for bleeding or delayed chest closure (19.4% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.051). Although operative mortality was similar in both cohorts, long-term follow-up mortality (38.0% vs 26.8%, p = 0.047) was higher among COMPLETE vs. HEMIARCH. Predictors of overall mortality among all-comers undergoing REDO included older age, low body surface area, endocarditis, ejection fraction <30%, emergent status of operation, extended cardiopulmonary bypass duration, intra-aortic balloon pump use, and a more extensive arch operation. Previous aortic surgery was not a risk-factor for mortality. Among all-comers undergoing REDO, survival was 81.4% at 1 year, 66.7% at 5 years, and 56.4% at 10 years of follow-up. While early postoperative outcomes are similar among HEMIARCH and COMPLETE, a more extensive arch-replacement is an independent risk-factor for overall mortality in REDO. Using appropriate clinical indications in the current era, REDO remains a viable option for selected patients.