Postoperative acute kidney injury after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has evolved as the standard for treating complicated acute type B aortic dissection (ATBAD). Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in critically ill patients and is commonly observed in patients with ATBAD. The purpose of the study was to characterize AKI after TEVAR. METHODS: All patients who underwent TEVAR for ATBAD from 2011 through 2021 were identified using the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. The primary end point was AKI. A generalized linear model analysis was performed to identify a factor associated with postoperative AKI. RESULTS: A total of 630 patients presented with ATBAD and underwent TEVAR. The indication for TEVAR was complicated ATBAD in 64.3%, high-risk uncomplicated ATBAD in 27.6%, and uncomplicated ATBAD in 8.1%. Of 630 patients, 102 (16.2%) developed postoperative AKI (AKI group) and 528 patients (83.8%) did not (non-AKI group). The most common indication for TEVAR was malperfusion (37.5%). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the AKI group (18.6% vs 4%; P < .001). Postoperatively, cerebrovascular accident, spinal cord ischemia, limb ischemia, and prolonged ventilation were more commonly observed in the AKI group. The expected mortality was similar at 2 years between the two groups (P = .51). Overall, the preoperative AKI was observed in 95 (15.7%) in the entire cohort consisting of 60 (64.5%) in the AKI group and 35 (6.8%) in the non-AKI group. A history of CKD (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-14.1; P = .01) and preoperative AKI (odds ratio, 24.1; 95% confidence interval, 10.6-55.0; P < .001) were independently associated with postoperative AKI. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of postoperative AKI was 16.2% in patients undergoing TEVAR for ATBAD. Patients with postoperative AKI had a higher rate of in-hospital morbidities and mortality than those without. A history of CKD and preoperative AKI were independently associated with postoperative AKI.

A Novel Risk Score to Predict Thirty-Day Readmissions after Acute Type A Aortic Dissections.

BACKGROUND: Readmissions following acute type A aortic dissections (ATAAD) are associated with potentially worse clinical outcomes and increased hospital costs. Predicting which patients are at risk for readmission may guide patient management prior to discharge. METHODS: The National Readmissions Database was utilized to identify patients treated for ATAAD between 2010 and 2018. Univariate mixed effects logistic regression was used to assess each variable. Variables were assigned risk points based off the bootstrapped (bias-corrected) odds ratio of the final variable model according to the Johnson's scoring system. A mixed effect logistic regression was run on the risk score (sum of risk points) and 30-day readmission. Calibration plots and predicted readmission curves were generated for model assessment. RESULTS: A total of 30,727 type A aortic dissections were identified. The majority of ATAAD (66%) were in men with a median age of 61 years and 30-day readmission rate of 19.4%. The risk scores ranging from -1 to 14 mapped to readmission probabilities between 3.5% and 29% for ATAAD. The predictive model showed good calibration and receiver operator characteristics with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81. Being a resident of the hospital state (OR: 2.01 [1.64, 2.47], p < 0.001) was the highest contributor to readmissions followed by chronic kidney disease (1.35 [1.16, 1.56], p = 0), discharge to a short-term facility (1.31 [1.09, 1.57], p = 0.003), and developing a myocardial infarction (1.20 [1.00, 1.45], p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The readmission model had good predictive capability given by the large AUC. Being a resident in the State of the index admission was the most significant contributor to readmission.

Impact of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy on Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients.

ABSTRACT: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is increasingly utilized in patients with advanced heart failure and morbid obesity. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) can facilitate weight loss in this population and can ultimately change the pharmacokinetics of heart failure therapeutics. In this study, we aimed to explore the changes in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy post LSG intervention. We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of morbidly obese LVAD patients between 2013 and 2019 at the University of Florida with available pharmacotherapeutic data at 1 and 6 months. Thirteen post-LSG patients and 13 control subjects were included in the final analysis. In the post-LSG group, the mean body mass index decreased significantly (44 ± 5 vs. 34 ± 4.9, P < 0.001), and 7 patients were successfully bridged to cardiac transplantation. Only 3 patients required adjustment of their LVAD speed. Mean return to flow decreased by 8 mm Hg, despite a 45% reduction in the mean number of vasodilators per patient (1.2 vs. 0.7, P = 0.03). Mean weekly warfarin dose decreased by 35% after 6 months (32.9 ± 20.9 vs. 50.7 ± 26.6, P = 0.01). The use of diuretics, vasodilators, and beta-blockers was significantly reduced by 50%, 45%, and 35%, respectively. None of these changes were observed in the control group at 6-month follow-up post LVAD. In this single-center experience, weight loss post LSG is associated with decreased vasodilator, diuretic, and anticoagulant medication requirements in LVAD patients.

Florida sleeve is a safe and effective technique for valve salvage in acute stanford type A aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Valve-sparing root replacement is commonly used for management of aortic root aneurysms in elective setting, but its technical complexity hinders its broader adoption for acute type-A aortic dissection (ATAAD). The Florida sleeve (FS) procedure is a simplified form of valve sparing aortic root reconstruction that does not require coronary reimplantation. Here, we present our outcomes of the FS repair in patients with dilated roots in the setting of an ATAAD. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 24 consecutive patients (2002-2018) treated with FS procedure for ATAAD. Demographic, operative, and postoperative outcomes were queried from our institutional database. Long term follow-up was obtained from clinic visits for local patients, and with telephone and telehealth measures otherwise. RESULTS: Mean age was 49 ± 14 years with 19 (79%) males. Marfan syndrome was present in 4 (16.7%) patients and 14 (58.3) had ≥2+ aortic insufficiency (AI). Nine (37.2%) had preoperative mal-perfusion or shock. The FS was combined with hemi-arch replacement in 15 (62.5%) patients and a zone-2 arch replacement in 9 (37.5%) patients. There were 2 (8.3%) early postoperative mortalities. Median follow-up period was 46 months (range, 0.3-146). The median survival of the entire cohort was 143.4 months. One patient (4.2%) required redo aortic valve replacement for unrelated aortic valve endocarditis at 30 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: FS is simplified and reproducible valve-sparing root repair. In appropriate patients, it can be applied safely in acute Stanford type-A aortic dissection with excellent early and long-term results.

Transcatheter mitral valve therapies: State of the art.

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is one of the most prevalent valvular pathologies in the developed world. There continues to be a growing population of aging patients with MR who may be too high risk for surgical management. The rapid adoption and remarkable success of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) generated enthusiasm for transcatheter mitral valve therapies; however, the complex anatomy and pathophysiology of the mitral valve confers several unique challenges for a fully percutaneous approach. Nevertheless, several devices are under development and in various phases of preclinical or clinical testing, both for transcatheter mitral valve replacement and repair. MitraClip (Abbott Vascular), which has received FDA approval, is the most established percutaneous repair strategy and has been performed in over 80,000 patients as of 2019. The following article serves as a review of the available and upcoming devices for the various etiologies of mitral valvular disease, as well as the unique challenges and potential complications of transcatheter mitral valve intervention.

Cerebral protection using deep hypothermic circulatory arrest versus retrograde cerebral perfusion for aortic hemiarch reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: With evolutions in technique, recent data encourage the use of cerebral perfusion during aortic arch repair. However, a randomized data have demonstrated higher rates of neurologic injury according to MRI lesions using antegrade cerebral perfusion during hemiarch reconstruction. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of two institutional aortic center databases to identify adult patients who underwent aortic hemiarch reconstruction for elective aortic aneurysm or acute type A aortic dissection. Patients were stratified according to cerebral protection method: (1) deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) group versus (2) DHCA/retrograde cerebral perfusion (RCP) group. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients and 245 patients underwent hemiarch reconstruction for aortic aneurysm electively and aortic dissection, respectively. In aneurysmal pathology, the DHCA group included 133 patients and the DHCA/RCP group included 187 patients. Operative mortality was 0.8% in the DHCA group and 2.7% in the DHCA/RCP group (p = 0.41). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates revealed comparable 2-year survival (p = 0.14). In dissection, 43 patients and 202 patients were included in the DHCA group and the DHCA/RCP group, respectively. Operative mortality was equivalent between the two groups (11.6% in the DHCA group and 9.4% in the DHCA/RCP group, p = 0.58). Long-term survival was similar at 2 years between the groups (p = 0.06). Multivariable analysis showed cerebral perfusion strategy was not associated with the composite outcome of operative mortality and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In treating both elective and acute ascending aortic pathologies with hemiarch reconstruction, both DHCA alone or in combination with RCP yield comparable results.

Outcomes of acute type A aortic dissection during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database.

PURPOSE: There have been reported reductions of hospital presentation for acute cardiovascular conditions such as myocardial infarction and acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined presentation patterns and outcomes of ATAAD in North America immediately before, and during, the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (STS ACSD) was queried to identify patients presenting with ATAAD in the 12 months pre-pandemic (March 2019-February 2020), and during the early pandemic (March through June 2020). Demographics and operative characteristics were compared using χ² test and Wilcoxon Rank-sum test. The median annual case volume designated low-volume centers versus high-volume centers (>10 cases per month). Step-wise variable selection was used to create a risk set used for adjustment of all multivariable models. RESULTS: There were 5480 patients identified: 4346 pre-pandemic and 1134 during pandemic. There was significantly lower volume of median cases per month during the COVID-19 pandemic period (286 interquartile range [IQR]: 256-306 vs. 372 IQR: 291-433,p = .0152). In historically low-volume centers (<10 cases per year), there was no difference in volume between the two periods (142 IQR: 133-166 vs. 177 IQR: 139-209, p = NS). In high-volume centers, there was a decline during the pandemic (140 IQR: 123-148 vs. 212 IQR: 148-224, p = .0052). There was no difference in overall hospital-to-hospital transfers during the two time periods (54% of cases pre-pandemic, 55% during). Patient demographics, operative characteristics, malperfusion rates, and cardiac risk factors were similar between the two time periods. There was no difference in unadjusted operative mortality (19.01% pre-pandemic vs. 18.83% during, p = .9) nor major morbidity (52.42% pre-pandemic vs. 51.24% during, p = .5). Risk-adjusted multivariable models showed no difference in either operative mortality nor major morbidity between time periods. CONCLUSIONS: For patients presenting to the hospital with ATAAD during the first surge of the pandemic, operative outcomes were similar to pre-pandemic despite a 30% reduction in volume. Out-of-hospital mortality from ATAAD during the pandemic remains unknown. Further understanding these findings will inform management of ATAAD during future pandemics.

Endovascular repair of the aortic arch: State of the art.

BACKGROUND: Open total arch replacement remains the gold standard treatment for aneurysms and dissections involving the aortic arch. However, high-risk surgical candidates may benefit from endovascular techniques to reduce the risk of perioperative mortality and morbidity, especially neurologic complications. Numerous endografts are available for investigational use in the aortic arch as part of investigational device exemption (IDE) programs. Some devices are fenestrated or scalloped, while others are branched, ranging from single branch to triple branch stent-grafts. Furthermore, chimney techniques and in situ fenestration may be utilized in bailout or emergent situations. RESULTS: Initial results describing outcomes of complete endovascular repair of the aortic arch are encouraging, with current data estimating that technical success ranges from 84.2% to 100%. Moreover, operative mortality may be as high as 13.2%, while neurologic complications also remain common, with stroke rates being as high as 20% and spinal cord ischemia being as high as 3.1%. However, more data are necessary to determine the comparative treatment effect of endovascular stent-grafting of the aortic arch, compared with conventional open and hybrid repairs. Longitudinal follow-up is also lacking, which will determine the long-term durability of endografts in the aortic arch. Nevertheless, endovascular repair represents an important opportunity for improving outcomes in patients with complex and potentially devastating pathologies of the aortic arch.

Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring replacement: Lessons learned from bioprosthetic surgical valve failures.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data are available about the outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using transseptal approach in patients with prior mitral valve repair (valve-in-ring) or replacement (valve-in-valve) (TMViVR) and on modes of the prior surgical valve failures. We report our tertiary center TMVR experience in high surgical risk patients with prior mitral valve repair or replacement. METHODS: From December 2016 to January 2020, patients with symptomatic severe mitral valve stenosis and/or insufficiency at increased redo surgical risk were included. TMViVR was performed off-label with Sapien S3 valve (Edwards Lifesciences). Patients were followed within 30-days and 1-year from the procedure. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients underwent transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (n = 21) or valve-in-ring (n = 6) replacement. Mean ± SD age was 71.8 ± 11 years with Society of Thoracic Surgeons' calculated mortality 7.1 ± 4.6%. The etiology of valve failure was stenosis in 17 (63%) patients, insufficiency in 4 (14.8%) patients, and both in 6 (22.2%) patients. TMViVR technical success was 100% in all patients. Left ventricular outflow track (LVOT) obstruction was observed in only one (3.7%) patient. Zero patients had moderate or severe central mitral valve regurgitation or paravalvular leak. All patients had symptomatic improvement at 30 days. The mean transmitral diastolic pressure gradient decreased from 14.1 ± 4.6 to 6.9 ± 4.6 mm Hg (p < .001) at 30 days. The one patient with LOVT obstruction required readmission at 5-months. One-year survival was 95%. At 1-year mean gradients remained lower than the baseline (7.0 ± 3.0 vs. 12.4 ± 4.0, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve and valve-in-ring replacement is feasible and safe. The improvement in mitral valve hemodynamics appears to be durable.

STratification risk analysis in OPerative management (STOP score) for drug-induced endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic has seen a drastic increase in the incidence of drug-associated infective endocarditis (IE). No clinical tool exists to predict operative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: A multi-institutional database was reviewed between 2011 and 2018. Multivariate logistic regression was fitted in an automated stepwise fashion. The STratification risk analysis in OPerative management of drug-associated IE (STOP) score was constructed. Morbidity was defined as reintubation, prolonged ventilation, pneumonia, renal failure, dialysis, stroke, reoperation for bleeding, and a permanent pacemaker. Cross-validation provided an unbiased estimate of out-of-sample performance. RESULTS: A total of 1181 patients underwent surgery for drug-associated IE (median age, 39; interquartile range [IQR], 30-54, 386 women [32.7%], 341 reoperations for prosthetic valve endocarditis [28.9%], 316 patients with multivalve disease [26.8%]). Operative morbidity and mortality were 41.1% and 5.9%, respectively. Predictors of morbidity were dialysis (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.82), emergent intervention (1.83-4.73), multivalve procedure (1.01-1.98), causative organisms other than Streptococcus (1.09-2.02), and type of valve procedure performed [aortic valve procedure (1.07-2.15), mitral valve replacement (1.03-2.05), tricuspid valve replacement (1.21-2.60)]. Predictors of mortality were dialysis (1.29-5.74), active endocarditis (1.32-83), lung disease (1.25-5.43), emergent intervention (1.69-6.60), prosthetic valve endocarditis (1.24-3.69), aortic valve procedure (1.49-5.92) and multivalve disease (1.00-2.95). Variables maximizing explanatory power were translated into a scoring system. Each point increased odds of morbidity and mortality by 22.0% and 22.4% with an accuracy of 94.0% and 94.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Drug-related IE is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. An easily-applied risk stratification score may aid in clinical decision-making.

10-Year Trends in Aortic Dissection: Mortality and Weekend Effect within the US Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS).

BACKGROUND: This study examined changes in aortic dissection (AD) mortality from 2006 to 2017 and assessed the impact of weekday versus weekend presentation upon mortality. METHODS: This observational study analyzed all records in the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) database. NEDS aggregates discharge data from 984 hospitals in 36 states and the District of Columbia in the United States of America. All patients with thoracic and thoracoabdominal AD recorded as their principal diagnosis were identified via ICD codes. RESULTS: Patient characteristics (weekday|weekend) count: 26,759|9,640, P = 0.016; age (years): 65.2 ± 15.8|64.7 ± 16.2, P = 0.016; women: 11,318 (42.3%)|4,086 (42.4), P = 0.883; Charlson comorbidity index: 2.3 ± 1.7|2.3 ± 1.6, P = 0.025. There were 36,399 ED visits with diagnosed AD. Annual AD diagnoses increased by 70% from 2006 to 2017. From 2012-2017, patients had lower in-hospital mortality (9.9% versus 11.9%, P < 0.001) compared with 2006-2011. Patients reporting during the weekend had higher in-hospital mortality (11.8% versus 10.4%, P < 0.001) compared with weekdays. On multivariable analysis, year of presentation remained independently associated with in-hospital mortality, with 2012-2017 being associated with reduced mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82, 0.99, P = 0.031), as compared with 2006-2011. Weekend presentation remained independently associated with worse in-hospital mortality (OR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29, P = 0.003) compared with weekday presentation. CONCLUSION: Although AD mortality is decreasing, the patients presenting on the weekend were 13% more likely to die in the hospital compared with patients presenting during the week.

Successful bridge to lung transplantation with transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

End-stage lung disease and advanced cardiac conditions are frequently seen together and represent a clinical dilemma. Even though both issues may be amenable to surgical management, combining lung transplant with surgical valve repair is rarely done and theoretically associated with increased morbidity and mortality risks, especially in elderly patients. Here, we describe 2 patients presenting with end-stage lung disease and significant aortic stenosis who were successfully bridged to lung transplant via transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Patient 1 was a 66-year-old man who underwent a double lung transplant 56 days after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Patient 2 was a 70-year-old man who underwent a single right lung transplant 103 days after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Both patients had uneventful postoperative courses and are alive at the 1-year time point with excellent performance status. This report suggests that transcatheter aortic valve replacement may favorably impact lung transplant candidacy for patients with end-stage lung disease in the setting of severe aortic stenosis, likely representing a better alternative to concomitant aortic valve replacement and lung transplant in elderly patients.

Medical and surgical management of acute type B aortic intramural hematoma.

Type B acute aortic dissection (AAD) and intramural hematoma (IMH) can both present as potentially catastrophic lesions of the descending aorta. IMH is distinguished from AAD by the absence of an intimal tear and flap. With short-term outcomes being similar to type B AAD, IMH is treated identically to AAD in the corresponding segment of the aorta. While all patients with any acute aortic syndrome of the descending aorta receive prompt anti-impulse therapy, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is reserved for patients presenting with certain complications, namely malperfusion, rupture, or periaortic hematoma. Technical aspects of TEVAR for IMH include maximal endograft oversizing of 10% with 20 mm landing zones of the healthy aorta, revascularization of the left subclavian artery when covered, use of cerebrospinal fluid drainage with extensive coverage, and restoration of branch vessel perfusion. With respect to disease evolution, IMH may progress to classic AD, frank rupture, or aneurysmal dilation; yet, IMH may also regress and be completely resorbed. However, since the natural history of IMH is unpredictable, TEVAR is being used more aggressively to improve long-term survival, rates of secondary reintervention, and positive aortic remodeling. Much remains unknown for acute type B IMH, including the use of prophylactic TEVAR for stable uncomplicated presentations, as well as the optimal timing of intervention and certain technical aspects of TEVAR. As such, IMH remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for cardiovascular surgeons.

Current trends in the management of acute type A aortic intramural hematoma.

Within the spectrum of acute aortic syndromes, intramural hematoma (IMH) is a distinct lesion that is characterized by crescentic or circumferential thickening of the aortic wall in the absence of an intimal defect. The reported incidence of IMH among all type A acute aortic syndromes ranges from 3.5% to 28.3%. As compared with acute aortic dissection, IMH is a disease of the elderly, and it tends to have reduced rates of malperfusion syndromes, aortic insufficiency, and root dilation, yet also tends to have increased rates of pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, and periaortic hematoma. With respect to natural history, IMH may progress to classic dissection, frank rupture, or aneurysmal dilation; yet, IMH may also regress and be completely resorbed. However, studies disagree over the rates of progression or regression; as such, few studies agree on the short-term and long-term prognosis associated with IMH. American and European guidelines advocate emergent surgery for all acutely presenting type A IMH. At a minimum, supracoronary replacement of the aorta with hemiarch reconstruction is the preferred extent of operative repair to reduce rates of long-term reintervention for disease progression. However, valve and/or root procedures may be necessary proximally, while total arch reconstruction or hybrid procedures for the descending aorta may be necessary distally. Much remains unknown for IMH, including the ideal extent of aortic repair, risk-stratification for elderly patients, and the optimal treatment paradigm for stable, uncomplicated IMH. As such, IMH remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for the cardiovascular surgeon.

Endograft and external cinch to control hemorrhage in acute type A aortic dissection.

Acute DeBakey I or II aortic dissection (AD) is a surgical emergency with significant mortality if not repaired immediately. We present the case of a 49-year-old man with acute type I AD, who initially underwent zone 2 arch replacement for a primary arch tear. A calcified ductus arteriosus was noted during arch reconstruction. He exhibited exsanguinating hemorrhage from the proximal descending thoracic aorta upon an initial attempt to wean off cardiopulmonary bypass. Hemostasis was achieved with retrograde transfemoral thoracic endovascular aortic repair and transmediastinal external cinch around the descending aorta to obliterate false lumen flow.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement 24 years after cardiac transplantation.

As patient survival after cardiac transplantation has improved over the course of the last several decades, clinicians are now faced with late complications. This includes aortic stenosis which, traditionally, has been treated with reoperative sternotomy and aortic valve replacement. Transcather aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a minimally invasive alternative in this high-risk population. A small but growing number of cases of TAVR after heart transplantation in high-risk patients have been reported in the last 10 years; we now present a case of aortic valve replacement via a transcatheter approach 24 years after cardiac transplantation.

Early versus standard renal replacement therapy after left ventricular assist device implantation.

OBJECTIVES: Renal function may improve after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant, however, some patients develop postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI). Randomized trials showed benefit for early renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill patients with AKI, but this practice has not been studied in LVAD patients. METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of all adults (>18 years) who underwent LVAD placement from 1/2010 to 12/2018. We collected preoperative, hemodynamic, echocardiographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data. AKI was defined according to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes definition. Early (E) RRT was considered treatment at AKI stage II or below. Standard (S) RRT was considered treatment at AKI stage III. Outcomes and Kaplan-Meier analysis were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were included (mean age 56.10 years, 81% males, 30.4% African-American race). A total of 71 (38.6%) developed AKI and 17 (9.24%) needed RRT (11 E vs 6 S). A total of 11 remained hemodialysis-dependent at discharge (5 [45.5%] in E vs 6 [100%] in S, P = .043). There was a trend toward shorter intensive care unit stay and ventilation time in E group, and overall hospital stay was significantly less in the E group (48.18 ± 25.95 vs 94.00 ± 53.07 days, P = .028). Thirty-day mortality was similar between groups (E 18% vs S 16%, P = .9), but there was a trend toward improved overall survival in the E group. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine early initiation of RRT after LVAD implant. Early RRT was associated with shorter hospital stay, lower need for permanent RRT, and a trend toward improved survival. This practice may provide significant cost savings and should be examined further.

Utilizing the index for mortality prediction after cardiac transplantation risk score to predict hospital resource consumption.

OBJECTIVE: The index for mortality prediction after cardiac transplantation (IMPACT) risk score incorporates 12 preoperative recipient-specific variables, and has been validated as an accurate predictor of short- and long-term mortality after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHTx). We believe it can also be used to predict hospital costs, and we hypothesize that higher preoperative IMPACT risk scores are associated with increased hospital resource consumption. METHODS: All OHTx patients ≥18 years of age at our institution were reviewed from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2014. Total index hospitalization costs post-transplant were extracted and presented in 2014 consumer price index inflation-adjusted US dollars. Patients were stratified into quartiles (Q) according to IMPACT risk scores. Logarithmic transformation normalized cost data, and linear regression assessed for correlation. A comparison of cost between Q of IMPACT risk score was performed using rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-six (n = 356) OHTx were performed during the study period. The median IMPACT score for the cohort was five (interquartile range [IQR] 3-6). Eight (2.2%) patients died within 30-days and 1-year Kaplan-Meier survival was 88.3%. The median length of stay (LOS) was 16 (IQR 14-24) days. The median hospital cost for index admission was $222 200 (IQR:$169 200-$313 700). Median LOS was longer in Q4 vs Q1 (18 days vs 15 days, P = .01) and index hospital costs in Q4 were significantly higher compared to Q1 patients ($280 400 vs $205 000, P < .01). There was a significant positive correlation between IMPACT risk score and cost (regression coefficient .04, P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first study in adult cardiac transplantation to identify a positive correlation between hospital cost and recipient risk using the IMPACT risk score. Cost and resource consumption for the index admission after OHTx were significantly higher in the highest IMPACT risk Q compared with patients in the lowest Q.

Time of day does not influence outcomes in acute type A aortic dissection: Results from the IRAD.

BACKGROUND: Type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) represents a surgical emergency requiring intervention regardless of time of day. Whether such a "evening effect" exists regarding outcomes for TAAAD has not been previously studied using a large registry data. METHODS: Patients with TAAAD were identified from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissections (1996-2019). Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing operative repair during the daytime (D), defined as 8 am-5 pm, versus the evening (N), defined as 5 pm-8 am. RESULTS: Four thousand one-hundrd and ninety-seven surgically treated patients with TAAAD were identified, with 1824 patients undergoing daytime surgery (43.5%) and 2373 patients undergoing evening surgery (56.5%). Daytime patients were more likely to have undergone prior cardiac surgery (13.2% vs. 9.5%; p < .001) and have had a prior aortic dissection (4.8% vs. 3.4%; p = .04). Evening patients were more likely to have been transferred from a referring hospital (70.8% vs. 75.0%; p = .003). Daytime patients were more likely to undergo aortic valve sparing root procedures (23.3% vs. 19.2%; p = .035); however, total arch replacement was performed with equal frequency (19.4% vs. 18.8%; p = .751). In-hospital mortality (D: 17.3% vs. N. 16.2%; p = .325) was similar between both groups. Subgroup analysis examining the effect of weekend presentation revealed no significant mortality difference. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of TAAAD patients underwent surgical repair at night. There were higher rates of postoperative tamponade in evening patients; however, mortality was similar. The expertise of cardiac-dedicated operative and critical care teams regardless of time of day as well as training paradigms may explain similar mortality outcomes in this high risk population.

Implications of secondary aortic intervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute and chronic type B dissection.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become a mainstay of therapy for acute and chronic type B aortic dissection (TBAD). Dynamic aortic morphologic changes, untreated dissected aorta, and persistent false lumen perfusion have significant consequences for reintervention after TEVAR for TBAD. However, few reports contrast differences in secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR for TBAD or describe their influence on mortality. This analysis examined incidence, timing, and types of SAI after TEVAR for acute and chronic TBAD and determined their impact on survival. METHODS: All TEVAR procedures for acute and chronic TBAD (2005-2016) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with staged (<30 days) or concomitant ascending aortic arch repair or replacement were excluded. Acuity was defined by symptom onset (0-30 days, acute; >30 days, chronic). SAI procedures were grouped into open (intended treatment zone or remote aortic site), major endovascular (TEVAR extension or endograft implanted at noncontiguous site), and minor endovascular (side branch or false lumen embolization) categories. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to identify SAI predictors. RESULTS: TEVAR for TBAD was performed in 258 patients (acute, 49% [n = 128]; chronic, 51% [n = 130]). Mean follow-up was 17 ± 22 months with an overall SAI rate of 27% (n = 70; acute, 22% [28]; chronic, 32% [42]; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.9; P = .07]. Median time to SAI was significantly less after acute than after chronic dissection (0.7 [0-12] vs 7 [0-91] months; P < .001); however, freedom from SAI was not different (1-year: acute, 67% ± 4%, vs chronic, 68% ± 5%; 3-year: acute, 65% ± 7%, vs chronic, 52% ± 8%; P = .7). Types of SAI were similar (acute vs chronic: open, 61% vs 55% [P = .6]; major endovascular, 36% vs 38% [P = .8]; minor endovascular, 21% vs 21% [P = 1]). The open conversion rate (either partial or total endograft explantation: acute, 10% [13/128]; chronic, 15% [20/130]; P = .2) and incidence of retrograde dissection (acute, 6% [7/128]; chronic, 4% [5/130]; P = .5) were similar. There was no difference in survival for SAI patients (5-year: acute + SAI, 55% ± 9%, vs acute without SAI, 67% ± 8% [P = .3]; 5-year: chronic + SAI, 72% ± 6%, vs chronic without SAI, 72% ± 7% [P = .7]). Factors associated with SAI included younger age, acute dissection with larger maximal aortic diameter at presentation, Marfan syndrome, and use of arch vessel adjunctive procedures with the index TEVAR. Indication for the index TEVAR (aneurysm, malperfusion, rupture, and pain or hypertension) or remote preoperative history of proximal arch procedure was not predictive of SAI. CONCLUSIONS: SAI after TEVAR for TBAD is common. Acute TBAD has a higher proportion of early SAI; however, chronic TBAD appears to have ongoing risk of remediation after the first postoperative year. SAI types are similar between groups, and the occurrence of aorta-related reintervention does not affect survival. Patients' features and anatomy predict need for SAI. These data should be taken into consideration for selection of patients, device design, and surveillance strategies after TEVAR for TBAD.