Renal Dysfunction at Discharge and Long-Term Survival in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate the association between renal dysfunction at discharge and long-term survival in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients following surgery. METHODS: From 2000 to 2021, 784 patients underwent aortic repair for an ATAAD. Patients were stratified based on creatinine (Cr) level at discharge alive or dead: normal Cr (n = 582) and elevated Cr defined as >1.3 mg/dL for males and >1.0 mg/dL for females or on dialysis at discharge (n = 202). RESULTS: Preoperatively, both groups had similar rates of comorbidities except for the elevated-Cr group which had more diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic and acute renal insufficiency. Both groups had similar open ATAAD repair procedures. Postoperative outcomes in the elevated-Cr group were significantly worse, including six times higher operative mortality (20% versus 3.4%, P < 0.0001). The landmark long-term survival after discharge alive was significantly worse in the elevated-Cr group than the normal-Cr group (10-y survival: 48% versus 69%, P = 0.0009). The elevated Cr on dialysis at discharge group had significantly worse five-year survival (40%) than the elevated Cr not on dialysis at discharge group (80%, P = 0.02) and the normal-Cr group (87%, P < 0.0001). Additionally, the elevated Cr not on dialysis had a worse five-year survival than the normal-Cr group (80% versus 87%, P = 0.02). Elevated Cr at discharge on dialysis was a significant risk factor for late mortality (hazard ratio = 4.22, 95% confidence interval: [2.07, 8.61], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Renal dysfunction at discharge was associated with significantly decreased short-term and long-term survival following open ATAAD repair. Surgeons should aggressively prevent renal dysfunction, especially new-onset dialysis, at discharge as it is correlated with significantly worse short-term and long-term outcomes.

2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. Structure: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Progression of aortic root based on long-term imaging studies after acute type A dissection repair.

BACKGROUND: To determine the progression of aortic root in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients after aortic root repair (ARr) or replacement (ARR) based on long-term follow-up imaging studies. METHODS: From 1996 to 2019, 732 patients had ATAAD repair at our institution. Six hundred and seven of these patients had either ARr, (n = 383) or ARR (n = 224). Eighty-one patients were excluded due to a lack of postoperative imaging. Three hundred and thirty-two patients were included in the repair group and 194 patients in the replacement group for long-term follow-up imaging study. RESULTS: Compared to the ARR group, the ARr group was significantly older (60 years vs. 55 years) and had more patients with hypertension (79% vs. 63%) but less male patients (63% vs. 79%) and connective tissue disorder (1.8% vs 8%). The ARr group had more zone two arch replacement (22% vs. 11%), similar HCA time (35 min vs. 31 min), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (203 min vs. 266 min), aortic cross-clamp time (128 min vs. 214 min), and fewer concomitant coronary artery bypass (3.9% vs. 8.9%). The root growth rate over 12 years was similar between the repair and replacement group (0.20 mm/year vs. 0.18 mm/year, p = .75). Both the repair and replacement group had similar 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation (6.9% vs. 5.9%; p = .67), operative mortality (7.8% vs. 8.5%; p = .78), and 15-year survival (51% vs. 52%; p = .40). CONCLUSIONS: There was minimal growth of the aortic root after root repair or replacement for ATAAD patients. Both aortic root repair and replacement were acceptable techniques for ATAAD surgery in select patients.

Hypothermic circulatory arrest versus aortic clamping in thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: To compare perioperative and midterm outcomes in thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAA and TAAA) repair using hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) or aortic clamping (AC) with mild hypothermia. METHODS: From 2012 to 2021 there were 180 open repairs of a TAA or TAAA, of which 90 (50%) were done with HCA and 90 (50%) with aortic clamping with mild hypothermia. The indications for HCA were arch aneurysm, TAA from chronic aortic dissection, and inability to clamp the aorta for proximal anastomosis. RESULTS: Compared to AC, the HCA group had less prior descending aorta replacement/repair (9.1% vs. 32%, p = 0.0001). Intraoperatively, the HCA group had more TAAs (70% vs. 20%, p < 0.0001) while the AC group had more TAAAs (80% vs. 30%, p < 0.0001). HCA group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass times (242 vs. 181 min, p < 0.0001) but shorter cross-clamp time (39 vs. 120 min, p < 0.0001) and lower temperatures (18°C vs. 34°C, p < 0.0001). Postoperatively, the HCA group had longer intubation times (31 vs. 26 h, p = 0.002), but all other postoperative outcomes including paralysis (2.2% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.08), and operative mortality (4.4% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.68) were similar between HCA and AC groups. Patient age was an independent risk factor for postoperative paralysis (OR 1.07, p = 0.03) while HCA was not significant (OR 0.37, p = 0.21). Five-year survival was similar between HCA and AC groups (85% vs. 80%, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative outcomes and midterm survival were acceptable in thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm patients after HCA or AC. Both HCA and AC with mild hypothermia were valid approaches in TAA/A repair.

Elective Surgical Delays Due to COVID-19: The Patient Lived Experience.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative research explored the lived experiences of patients who experienced postponement of elective cardiac and vascular surgery due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We know very little about patients during the novel coronavirus pandemic. Understanding the patient voice may play an important role in prioritization of postponed cases and triage moving forward. METHODS: Utilizing a hermeneutical phenomenological qualitative design, we interviewed 47 individuals who experienced a postponement of cardiac or vascular surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed and informed by phenomenological research methods. RESULTS: Patients in our study described 3 key issues around their postponement of elective surgery. Patients described robust narratives about the meanings of their elective surgeries as the chance to "return to normal" and alleviate symptoms that impacted everyday life. Second, because of the meanings most of our patients ascribed to their surgeries, postponement often took a toll on how patients managed physical health and emotional well-being. Finally, paradoxically, many patients in our study were demonstrative that they would "rather die from a heart attack" than be exposed to the coronavirus. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several components of the patient experience, encompassing quality of life and other desired benefits of surgery, the risks of COVID, and difficulty reconciling the 2. Our study provides significant qualitative evidence to inform providers of important considerations when rescheduling the backlog of patients. The emotional and psychological distress that patients experienced due to postponement may also require additional considerations in postoperative recovery.

Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) reporting standards for type B aortic dissections.

This Society for Vascular Surgery/Society of Thoracic Surgeons (SVS/STS) document illustrates and defines the overall nomenclature associated with type B aortic dissection. The contents describe a new classification system for practical use and reporting that includes the aortic arch. Chronicity of aortic dissection is also defined along with nomenclature in patients with prior aortic repair and other aortic pathologic processes, such as intramural hematoma and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer. Complicated vs uncomplicated dissections are clearly defined with a new high-risk grouping that will undoubtedly grow in reporting and controversy. Follow-up criteria are also discussed with nomenclature for false lumen status in addition to measurement criteria and definitions of aortic remodeling. Overall, the document provides a facile framework of language that will allow more granular discussions and reporting of aortic dissection in the future.

Endovascular Fenestration/Stenting First Followed by Delayed Open Aortic Repair for Acute Type A Aortic Dissection With Malperfusion Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Immediate open repair of acute type A aortic dissection is traditionally recommended to prevent death from aortic rupture. However, organ failure because of malperfusion syndrome (MPS) might be the most imminent life-threatening problem for a subset of patients. METHODS: From 1996 to 2017, among 597 patients with acute type A aortic dissection, 135 patients with MPS were treated with upfront endovascular reperfusion (fenestration/stenting) followed by delayed open repair (OR). We compared outcomes between the first and second decades and observed mortalities with those expected with an "upfront OR for every patient" approach, determined using prognostic models from the literature (Verona, Leipzig-Halifax, Stockholm, Penn, and GERAADA [German Registry for Acute Aortic Dissection Type A] models). RESULTS: Overall, in-hospital mortality improved between the 2 decades (21.0% versus 10.7%, P<0.001). In the second decade, for patients with MPS initially treated with fenestration/stenting, mortality from aortic rupture decreased from 16% to 4% ( P=0.05), the risk of dying from organ failure was 6.6 times higher than dying from aortic rupture (hazard ratio=6.63; 95% CI, 1.5-29; P=0.01), and 30-day mortality after OR for MPS patients was 3.7%. Compared to the expected mortalities with the upfront OR for every patient models, our observed 30-day and in-hospital mortalities (9% and 11%, respectively) of all patients with acute type A aortic dissection were significantly lower ( P≤0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate OR is the strategy to prevent death from aortic rupture for the majority of patients with acute type A aortic dissection. However, relatively stable (no rupture, no tamponade) patients with MPS benefit from a staged approach: upfront endovascular reperfusion followed by aortic OR at resolution of organ failure.

Evolving trends in aortic valve replacement: A statewide experience.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at intermediate, high, and extreme risk for mortality from SAVR. We examined recent trends in aortic valve replacement (AVR) in Michigan. METHODS: The Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative (MSTCVS-QC) database was used to determine the number of SAVR and TAVR cases performed from January 2012 through June 2017. Patients were divided into low, intermediate, high, and extreme risk groups based on STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM). TAVR patients in the MSTCVS-QC database were also matched with those in the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry to determine their Heart Team-designated risk category. RESULTS: During the study period 9517 SAVR and 4470 TAVR cases were performed. Total annual AVR volume increased by 40.0% (from 2086 to 2920), with a 13.3% decrease in number of SAVR cases (from 1892 to 1640) and a 560% increase in number of TAVR cases (from 194 to 1280). Greater than 90% of SAVR patients had PROM ≤8%. While >70% of TAVR patients had PROM ≤ 8%, they were mostly designated as high or extreme risk by a Heart Team. CONCLUSIONS: During the study period, SAVR volume gradually declined and TAVR volume dramatically increased. This was mostly due to a new group of patients with lower STS PROM who were designated as higher risk by a Heart Team due to characteristics not completely captured by the STS PROM score.

Acute type A intramural hematoma: The less-deadly acute aortic syndrome?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short- and midterm outcomes of surgically managed acute type A intramural hematoma (IMH) versus classic acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: From 1996 to February 2023, a total of 106 patients with acute type A IMH and 795 patients with classic ATAAD presented for open aortic repair at our institution. Data were obtained from the local Society of Thoracic Surgeons' Data Warehouse and medical chart review. RESULTS: Compared with the classic ATAAD group, the IMH group was older (65 vs 59 years, P < .001) and more likely to be female (45% vs 32%, P = .005), with fewer comorbidities such as severe aortic insufficiency (5.0% vs 25%, P < .001), acute stroke (2.8% vs 8.3%, P = .05), acute renal failure (5.7% vs 13%, P = .04), and malperfusion syndrome (8.5% vs 26%, P < .001) but more cardiac tamponade (18% vs 11%, P = .03). The IMH group had less aortic root replacement (15% vs 33%, P < .001), zone 2 arch replacements (9.4% vs 18%, P = .02), and shorter crossclamp times (120 minutes vs 150 minutes, P < .001). The operative mortality was significantly lower in the IMH group (0.9% vs 8.8%, P = .005) and a multivariable regression model showed IMH to be protective, odds ratio of 0.11, P = .03. The 10-year survival was similar between the 2 groups (65% vs 61%, P = .35). The hazard ratio of IMH for midterm mortality after surgery was 0.73, P = .12. CONCLUSIONS: Acute type A IMH could be treated with emergency open aortic repair with excellent short- and midterm outcomes.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2023 Update on Procedure Data and Research.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database is one of the largest and most comprehensive contemporary clinical databases in use. It now contains >9 million procedures from 1010 participants and 3651 active surgeons. Using audited data collection, it has provided the foundation for multiple risk models, performance metrics, health policy decisions, and a trove of research studies to improve the care of patients in need of cardiac surgical procedures. This annual report provides an update on the current status of the database and summarizes the development of new risk models and the STS Online Risk Calculator. Further, it provides insights into current practice patterns, such as the change in the demographics among patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, the use of minimally invasive techniques for valve and bypass surgery, or the adoption of surgical ablation and left atrial appendage ligation among patients with atrial fibrillation. Lastly, an overview of the research conducted using the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database and future directions for the database are provided.

Differences among sexes in presentation and outcomes in acute type A aortic dissection repair.

OBJECTIVE: Female sex is a known risk factor in most cardiac surgery, including coronary and valve surgery, but unknown in acute type A aortic dissection repair. METHODS: From 1996 to 2018, 650 patients underwent acute type A aortic dissection repair; 206 (32%) were female, and 444 (68%) were male. Data were collected through the Cardiac Surgery Data Warehouse, medical record review, and National Death Index database. RESULTS: Compared with men, women were significantly older (65 vs 57 years, P < .0001). The proportion of women and men inverted with increasing age, with 23% of patients aged less than 50 years and 65% of patients aged 80 years or older being female. Women had significantly less chronic renal failure (2.0% vs 5.4%, P = .04), acute myocardial infarction (1.0% vs 3.8%, P = .04), and severe aortic insufficiency. Women underwent significantly fewer aortic root replacements with similar aortic arch procedures, shorter cardiopulmonary bypass times (211 vs 229 minutes, P = .0001), and aortic crossclamp times (132 vs 164 minutes, P < .0001), but required more intraoperative blood transfusion (4 vs 3 units) compared with men. Women had significantly lower operative mortality (4.9% vs 9.5%, P = .04), especially in those aged more than 70 years (4.4% vs 16%, P = .02). The significant risk factors for operative mortality were male sex (odds ratio, 2.2), chronic renal failure (odds ratio, 3.4), and cardiogenic shock (odds ratio, 6.8). The 10-year survival was similar between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians and women should be cognizant of the risk of acute type A aortic dissection later in life in women. Surgeons should strongly consider operations for acute type A aortic dissection in women, especially in patients aged 70 years or more.

Aortic septotomy to optimize landing zones during thoracic endovascular aortic repair for chronic type B aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: The role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for chronic type B aortic dissection remains controversial. Clinical outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with recently implemented aortic septotomy strategy were compared with stand-alone thoracic endovascular aortic repair. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2020, 88 patients with chronic type B aortic dissection and degenerative aortic aneurysm underwent a thoracic endovascular aortic repair with or without adjunctive aortic septotomy, consisting of 36 (41%) with de novo chronic type B aortic dissection and 52 (59%) with residual chronic type B aortic dissection after type A aortic dissection repair. RESULTS: Aortic septotomy was performed in 31 patients (35%) to optimize the proximal (3/31;10%) and distal (31/31;100%) landing zones. The aortic septotomy techniques comprised laser aortic septotomy in 16 patients (52%) and cheese wire septotomy in 15 patients (48%) with a 97% overall technical success rate. The median time interval between aortic dissection occurrence and thoracic endovascular aortic repair was 1.2 years. During follow-up, there were 12 (21%) sudden deaths and 17 (30%) combined aorta-related and sudden deaths in the nonaortic septotomy group, whereas there were no deaths in the septotomy group (P < .001). Patients without aortic septotomy required aortic reinterventions more frequently than those with aortic septotomy (30% vs 7%; P = .014), and 77% of these procedures were related to residual retrograde false lumen flow. Positive aortic remodeling was confirmed in 90% and 37% in the aortic septotomy and nonseptotomy groups, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Stand-alone thoracic endovascular aortic repair outcomes without adjunctive procedures for chronic type B aortic dissection remain unfavorable. In contrast, landing zone optimization using aortic septotomy resulted in a remarkably higher positive aortic remodeling rate. Routine aortic septotomy strategy may positively affect long-term chronic type B aortic dissection survival and expand thoracic endovascular aortic repair candidacy.

Specialization in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair: The Outcomes and Challenges.

With increasing specialization within the field of cardiac surgery and a positive relationship between case volume and surgical outcomes in many areas, the concept of dedicated aortic surgeons performing acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair was investigated. From 1996 to 2014, 436 patients underwent open surgical repair of an ATAAD and were subsequently divided based on surgeon subspecialization, aortic-surgeon (AS, n = 401) vs non-aortic-surgeon (NAS, n = 35). Each aortic surgeon performed an average of 13 ATAAD repair operations per year. Preoperative comorbidities were similar between groups. Intraoperatively, the AS group had 36% aortic root replacement vs 23% in the NAS group, P = 0.12, and 36% zone 1/2/3 arch replacement vs 26% in the NAS group, P = 0.20). Postoperatively, the AS group had significantly better outcomes, including intraoperative mortality (1.2% vs 5.7%), 30-day mortality (6.5% vs 17%), and composite outcomes (23% vs 46%). Multivariable logistic regression showed NAS was a risk factor for 30-day mortality with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.4 (P = 0.03), as were COPD (OR = 4.0, P = 0.046) and cardiogenic shock (OR = 13.4, P < 0.0001). The 10-year survival was 66% in the AS group vs 46% in the NAS group, P = 0.02. NAS (HR = 2.2), Age (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05), COPD (HR = 1.96), acute stroke (HR = 3.0), and New York Heart Association class III or IV (HR = 1.75) were significant risk factors for long-term mortality. Managing ATAAD by subspecialized aortic surgeons resulted in improved short- and long-term outcomes. Our specialty could consider ATAAD repair by high-volume aortic surgeons for better patient outcomes.

Cardiac Reoperations in Patients With Transcatheter Aortic Bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the frequency and clinical outcomes of reoperation after TAVR are not well-described. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2020, 1719 patients underwent a TAVR at our institution. Among these, 32 patients (2%) required a reoperation. Additionally, 16 patients who received a TAVR at another institution received a reoperation at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed these 48 patients. The median interval from TAVR to reoperation was 2.3 years. RESULTS: Primary reoperations included 37 TAVR valve explants (TAVR-explant; 77%) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), 8 mitral repairs/replacements (17%), 2 coronary artery bypass grafting procedures (4%), and 1 tricuspid valve replacement (2%). Forty-nine percent of nonaortic valve cardiac lesions were present at the time of TAVR. Furthermore, 18 TAVR-explant patients (49%) were deemed anatomically unsuitable for repeat TAVR based on the index TAVR imaging. During TAVR-explant, 6 patients (13%) with native TAVR sustained various degrees of aortic trauma. Patients with unplanned aortic repair demonstrated a smaller sinotubular junction diameter than those without unplanned repair. In contrast, no unplanned aortic repair was needed in the 14 patients with previous SAVR or the latest 20 consecutive patients. The overall in-hospital mortality was 15%, with an observed-to-expected morality ratio of 1.8. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical impact of post-TAVR reoperation remains substantial despite the lower frequency of unplanned aortic repair over time. The necessity of reoperations or unfavorable repeat TAVR anatomy appears predictable at the time of the index TAVR, and implanters must be mindful of "lifetime management" strategy during candidate selection.

Aortic valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Despite the rapid adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), there are scant data regarding aortic valve reintervention after initial TAVR. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2019, 1487 patients underwent a TAVR at the University of Michigan. Among these, 24 (1.6%) patients required an aortic valve reintervention. Additionally, 4 patients who received a TAVR at another institution underwent a valve reintervention at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed these 28 patients. RESULTS: The median age was 72 years, 36% were female and 86% of implanted TAVR devices were self-expandable. The leading indications for reintervention were structural valve degeneration (39%) and paravalvular leak (36%). The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was 4.6% at 8 years. Most (71%) were deemed unsuitable for repeat TAVR because of the need for concurrent cardiac procedures (50%), unfavorable anatomy (45%), or endocarditis (10%). TAVR valve explant was associated with frequent concurrent procedures, consisting of aortic repair (35%), mitral repair/replacement (35%), tricuspid repair (25%), and coronary artery bypass graft (20%). Seventy-one percent of aortic procedures were unplanned but proved necessary because of severe adhesion of the devices to the contacting tissue. There were 3 (15%) in-hospital mortalities in the TAVR valve explant group, whereas there was no mortality in the repeat TAVR group. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat TAVR procedure was frequently not feasible because of unfavorable anatomy and/or the need for concurrent cardiac procedures. Careful assessment of TAVR procedure repeatability should be weighed at the initial TAVR workup especially in younger patients who are expected to require a valve reintervention.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: 2022 Update on Outcomes and Research.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database is the most mature and comprehensive cardiac surgery database. It is one of the most respected clinical data registries in health care, providing accurate risk-adjusted benchmarks, a foundation for quality measurement and improvement activities, and the ability to perform novel research. This report encompasses data from the years 2020 and 2021 and is the seventh in a series of reports that provide updated volumes, outcomes, database-related developments, and research summaries using the Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

Distal Aortic Progression After Hemiarch, Zones 1-3 Arch Replacement in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: There is debate regarding aortic arch repair extent for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients. METHODS: From 1996 to 2021, 756 ATAAD patients underwent open arch replacement. The cohort was divided into hemiarch (n = 481), zone 1 (n = 65), zone 2 (n = 148), and zone 3 (n = 62) arch replacement groups. Cross-group comparison of aortic growth was modeled using data from interval postoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the distal aorta. RESULTS: Demographics were not significantly different except the hemiarch group had more coronary artery disease and less stroke. Intraoperatively, zones 1, 2, and 3 had greater cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermic circulatory arrest times and required more intraoperative blood transfusion than the hemiarch group. Perioperative outcomes were similar among groups except zone 3 had more reoperation for bleeding. Ten-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was hemiarch, 16.7%; zone 1, 16.3%; zone 2, 21.5%; and zone 3, 17.6% (P = .70). Ten-year survival was similar: hemiarch, 66%; zone 1, 60.3%; zone 2, 68.0%); and zone 3 66.1% (P = .20). Aortic arch, descending aorta, and abdominal aorta growth rates were not significantly different among groups over 10 years. In the whole cohort, the growth rate over time for aortic arch was 0.38 mm per year (P < .001), descending aorta 0.84 mm per year (P < .001), and abdominal aorta 0.69 mm per year (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in long-term survival, distal aorta growth, or reoperation rate for distal aortic aneurysm after hemiarch or zones 1, 2, or 3 arch replacement. Patient-specific arch replacement strategies may be used rather than defaulting to aggressive arch replacement for all ATAAD patients.

Reoperation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Insights from 10 years' experience.

OBJECTIVE: Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has demonstrated dramatic growth in the past decade. This study aims to investigate implications of post-TAVR reoperation from our 10-year experience. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2022, 66 post-TAVR patients underwent a reoperation, consisting of 42 (63.6%) patients with native TAVR and 24 (36.4%) patients with valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) after surgical aortic valve replacement. RESULTS: The aggregate proportion of patients belonging to the low-/intermediate-risk group at the time of TAVR exceeded that of the high-/extreme-risk cohort in 2021. The native TAVR group received a larger TAVR valve, whereas more frequent low-risk status at the time of TAVR than the VIV-TAVR group. Concurrent procedures were highly common during reoperation and isolated surgical aortic valve replacement represented only 18.2% of the entire cohort. The native TAVR group demonstrated significantly higher TAVR explant difficulty index score (2.0 vs 1.0 points; P < .001) and operative mortality (14.2% vs 0%; P = .079) compared with the VIV-TAVR group. The 8-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 1.9% and 14.1% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.1-15.9; P < .001) in the native and VIV-TAVR group, respectively. Furthermore, cumulative incidence of valve reintervention, combining reoperations and redo TAVRs, was 3.3% and 19.0% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.6-10.9; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-/intermediate-risk patients are emerging as the predominant group necessitating reoperations. Native TAVR was associated with lower postimplant reintervention rates, albeit with higher reoperative technical difficulty and mortality. Conversely, VIV-TAVR was associated with higher reintervention, but demonstrated lower technical difficulty and mortality for reoperation.

Midterm outcomes of open repair versus endovascular descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair.

Objective: The study objective was to evaluate the midterm outcome of thoracic endovascular aortic repair compared with open repair in patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm. Methods: From August 1993 to February 2023, 499 patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms underwent open repair (n = 221) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (n = 278). Of these, 120 matched pairs were identified using propensity score matching based on age, sex, chronic lung disease, stroke, coronary artery disease, diabetes, ejection fraction, dialysis, peripheral vascular disease, prior cardiac surgery, connective tissue disease, and chronic dissection. Primary outcomes were postoperative paralysis, operative mortality, reoperation, and midterm survival. Results: After matching, the preoperative demographics and comorbidities were balanced in both groups. Intraoperatively, open repair had a lower temperature (18 °C vs 36 °C) and more patients required blood products (66% vs 8%), P < .001. Postoperatively, patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair had fewer strokes (2.5% vs 9.2%; P = .03), less dialysis (0% vs 3.3%; P = .04), and shorter length of stay (5 days vs 12 days, P < .001), but similar lower-extremity paralysis (2.5% vs 2.5%, P = 1.00) compared with open repair. Furthermore, thoracic endovascular aortic repair had higher 7-year incidence of first reoperation (16.1% vs 3.6%, P < .001) but similar operative mortality (0.8% vs 4.2%; P = .10) and 10-year survival outcome (56%; 95% CI, 43-72 vs 58%; 95% CI, 49-68; P = .55) compared with open aortic repair. The hazard ratio was 0.93 (P = .78) for thoracic endovascular aortic repair for midterm mortality and 6.87 (P < .001) for reoperation. Conclusions: Open repair could be the first option for patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysms who were surgical candidates.

Stroke Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Determinants, Short and Long Term Impact.

We performed a contemporary assessment of clinical and radiographic factors of stroke after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Patients undergoing TEVAR from 2006 to 2017 were identified. We assessed clinical and radiographic data, including preoperative head and neck computed tomography, Doppler ultrasonography, and intraoperative angiography. Our primary outcome was stroke after TEVAR. Four hundred seventy-nine patients underwent TEVAR, mean age 68.1 ± 19.5 years, 52.6% male. Indications for TEVAR included aneurysms (n = 238, 49.7%) or dissections (n = 152, 31.7%). Ishimaru landing zones were Zone 2 (n = 225, 47.0%), Zone 3 (n = 151, 31.5%), or Zone 4 (n = 103, 21.5%). Stroke occurred in 3.8% (n = 18) of patients, with 1.9% (8) major events (modified Rankin Scale >3). Pathophysiology was predominantly embolic (n = 14), and occurred in posterior (n = 6), anterior (n = 6), or combined circulation (n = 4), and in the left hemisphere (n = 10) or bilateral (n = 6). Univariate analysis suggested use of lumbar drain (33.3% versus 57.2%, P = 0.04), inability to revascularize the left subclavian artery (16.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.04) and number of implanted components (2.5 ± 1.2 vs 2.0 ± 0.97, P = 0.03) were associated with stroke. Multivariable analysis identified number of implanted components (OR 1.7, 95%CI 1.17-2.67 P = 0.00) and inability to revascularize the left subclavian artery as independent predictors of stroke. Stroke was associated with a higher perioperative mortality (27.8% vs 3.9%, P < 0.01). Stroke after TEVAR is primarily embolic in nature and related to both anatomic and procedural factors. This may have important implications for device development in the era of endovascular arch repair.