Morbidity and Mortality in Adult Congenital Heart Surgery: Physiologic Component Augments Risk Prediction.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate whether the anatomic and physiologic stratification system (ACAP score), released as part of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association updated guidelines for management of adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) in 2018, better estimated mortality and morbidity after cardiac operations for ACHD. METHODS: The ACAP score was determined for 318 patients (age ≥18 years) with ACHD undergoing heart surgery at our institution between December 2001 and August 2019. The primary end point was perioperative mortality. The secondary aim was to evaluate the performance of the ACAP, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (STAT) Congenital Heart Surgery Mortality Categories, and ACHS mortality scores/categories at predicting a composite adverse outcome of perioperative mortality, prolonged ventilation, and renal failure requiring replacement therapy. Logistic regression models were built to estimate mortality and the composite outcome using anatomic and physiologic components independently and together. Receiver operating characteristic curves were created, and area under the curves were compared using the Delong test. RESULTS: The median age was 37 years (interquartile range, 26.3-50.0 years). There were 9 perioperative mortalities (2.8%). With respect to perioperative mortality, the area under the curve using the anatomic component only was 0.74, which improved to 0.81 after including physiologic severity (P = .05). When physiologic severity was added to the model for the composite outcome, the discriminatory abilities of the ACHS mortality score and the STAT categories increased significantly to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.91; P = .02) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.90; P = .04), comparable to the predictive power of ACAP. CONCLUSIONS: Physiologic severity augments ability to predict mortality and morbidity after cardiac surgery for ACHD. There is need for more robust ACHD-specific risk models.

Branch-first aortic arch replacement strategy decreases perioperative mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Sparce evidence suggests superiority of total arch replacement with the branch-first technique and antegrade cerebral perfusion over conventional techniques with respect to morbidity and mortality. Thus, we aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing traditional total arch replacement versus branch-first total arch replacement. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 144 patients undergoing total arch replacement from January 2017 to December 2021. Patients were dichotomized based on technique, either traditional total arch replacement or branch-first total arch replacement. Primary end points were 30-day mortality and adverse events. Branch-first total arch replacement and traditional total arch replacement cohorts were compared using Student t tests and chi-square tests. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors associated with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (47.2%) underwent traditional total arch replacement, and 76 patients (52.8%) underwent branch-first total arch replacement. The branch-first total arch replacement cohort had higher rates of chronic kidney disease, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and previous myocardial infarction (P = .04, .002, .035, and .031 respectively). The majority of total arch replacements (78, 55%) were performed for aneurysmal disease. Median antegrade cerebral perfusion times were significantly shorter in the branch-first total arch replacement cohort (P = .001). There were no significant differences in rates of stroke, reintubation, postoperative lumbar drainage, renal failure, reoperation for bleeding, or prolonged ventilation between total arch replacement cohorts. The branch-first total arch replacement group had significantly lower 30-day mortality compared with the traditional total arch replacement group (4% vs 19%, P = .004). After adjustment for chronic kidney disease, nonelective status, antegrade cerebral perfusion time, rates of dissections arriving in extremis or with malperfusion, and primary surgeon, undergoing a branch-first total arch replacement was associated with a 93% reduced odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.07, 95% CI, 0.009-0.48, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence that branch-first total arch replacement significantly reduces 30-day mortality compared with traditional total arch replacement.

Contemporary outcomes of mitral valve repair for degenerative disease in the era of increased penetrance of percutaneous mitral valve technology.

Objective: The study objective was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of mitral valve repair in the era of percutaneous technology. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 452 patients who underwent mitral valve repair for degenerative disease between 2010 and 2021. Survival, mitral valve reoperation, and mitral regurgitation recurrence were assessed using Cox regression, dichotomized for those aged more than or less than 60 years. Results: Median age in years (interquartile range) was 52 (47-57) in the younger cohort and 67 (63-73) in the older cohort (P < .0001). Preoperative comorbidities and leaflet pathology were comparable between groups. After adjustment for sex, prior sternotomy, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and type of leaflet repair, age 60 years or more was not associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 6.96, 95% confidence interval, 0.85-56.8, P = .07). Considering death as a competing outcome, cumulative incidence of mitral valve reoperation at 1, 3, and 5 years was 0.9%, 1.4%, and 1.8% in the younger cohort, respectively, and 2.7%, 4.0%, and 5.1% in the older cohort, respectively (subhazard ratio, 2.95, 95% confidence interval, 0.84-10.4, P = .09). Cumulative incidence of mitral regurgitation recurrence with moderate-severe or greater mitral regurgitation at 1, 3, and 5 years was 1.4%, 3.6%, and 5.1%, and 2.7%, 3.5%, and 4.7% in the younger and older cohorts, respectively (subhazard ratio, 0.85, 95% confidence interval, 0.29-2.50, P = .76). Subgroup analysis focusing on isolated mitral valve repairs (n = 388) showed equivalent results with respect to mortality (hazard ratio, 5.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.64-44.0, P = .12), mitral valve reoperation (subhazard ratio, 4.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.89-18.4, P = .07), and mitral regurgitation recurrence (subhazard ratio, 0.98, 95% confidence interval, 0.30-3.15, P = .97). Conclusions: Mitral valve repair outcomes continue to be excellent, even in low-risk patients aged more than 60 years.