Training in Aortic Arch Surgery as a Blueprint for a Structured Educational Team Approach: A Review.

Background and objectives: The treatment of pathologies of the aortic arch is a complex field of cardiovascular surgery that has witnessed enormous progress recently. Such treatment is mainly performed in high-volume centres, and surgeons gain great experience in mastering potential difficulties even under emergency circumstances, thereby ensuring the effective therapy of more complex pathologies with lower complication rates. As the numbers of patients rise, so does the need for well-trained surgeons in aortic arch surgery. But how is it possible to learn surgical procedures in a responsible way that, in addition to surgical techniques, also places particular demands on the overall surgical management such as perfusion strategy and neuro-protection? This is why a good training programme teaching young surgeons without increasing the risk for patients is indispensable. Our intention was to highlight the most challenging aspects of aortic arch surgery teaching and how young surgeons can master them. Materials and Methods: We analysed the literature to find out which methods are most suitable for such teaching goals and what result they reveal when serving as teaching procedures. Results: Several studies were found comparing the surgical outcome of young trainees with that of specialists. It was found that the results were comparable whether the procedure was performed by a specialist or by a trainee assisted by the specialist. Conclusions: We thus came to the conclusion that even for such a complex type of intervention, the responsible training of young surgeons by experienced specialists is possible. However, it requires a clear strategy and team approach to ensure a safe outcome for the patient.

Retrospective investigation of >400 patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair with or without cerebrospinal fluid drainage.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the risks and benefits of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) placement in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2020, 411 patients underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair in 1 institution where 236 patients (57%) received a preoperative CSFD. Patient and outcome characteristics were retrospectively analysed and compared between patients with and without preoperative CSFD placement. RESULTS: Preoperative CSFD was performed significantly more frequently in elective patients, especially those undergoing distal stent graft extension following frozen elephant trunk-stent placement (P < 0.001). Significantly fewer CSFD was placed in patients with acute aortic injury (P < 0.001). The incidence of permanent spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) was higher in patients without preoperative CSFD [10 patients (2%) vs 1 patient (0.2%), P = 0.001]. Postoperative CSFD was placed in 3 patients (0.7%). Severe CSFD-associated complications affected 2 patients (0.5%) namely, a subdural spinal haematoma causing permanent paraplegia in one of those 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: CSFS placement is associated with low procedural risk and can potentially help to prevent SCI. However, the SCI incidence is most likely also associated with other preoperative factors including the patient's haemodynamics. Hence, a general recommendation for placing a preoperative CSFD cannot be made when relying on the present evidence.

Concomitant aortic root replacement during frozen elephant trunk implantation does not increase perioperative risk.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate the risk of concomitant aortic root replacement during frozen elephant trunk (FET) total arch replacement. METHODS: Between March 2013 and February 2021, 303 patients underwent aortic arch replacement using the FET technique. Patient characteristics, intra- and postoperative data were compared between patients with (n = 50) and without (n = 253) concomitant aortic root replacement (implantation of a valved conduit or using the reimplantation valve-sparing technique) after propensity score matching. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, there were no statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics including the underlying pathology. There was no statistically significant difference regarding arterial inflow-cannulation or concomitant cardiac procedures, while cardiopulmonary bypass (P < 0.001) and aortic cross-clamp (P < 0.001) times were significantly longer in the root replacement group. Postoperative outcome was similar between the groups and there were no proximal reoperations in the root replacement group during follow-up. Root replacement was not predictive for mortality (P = 0.133, odds ratio: 0.291) in our Cox regression model. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (log rank: P = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant FET implantation and aortic root replacement prolongs operative times but does not influence postoperative outcomes or increase operative risk in an experienced high-volume centre. The FET procedure did not appear to be a contraindication for concomitant aortic root replacement even in patients with borderline indications for aortic root replacement.

Safety and efficacy of surgical correction of anomalous aortic origin of coronary arteries: experiences from 2 tertiary cardiac centres.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe the outcomes of surgical correction for anomalous aortic origin of coronary artery (AAOCA) with regard to symptom relief. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicentre study including surgical patients who underwent correction for AAOCA between 2009 and 2022. Patients who underwent concomitant cardiac procedures were also included. However, to analyse symptom relief, we only assessed the subgroup of symptomatic patients who underwent isolated correction for AAOCA. RESULTS: A total of 71 consecutive patients (median age 55, range 12-83) who underwent surgical correction for AAOCA were included in the study. Right-AAOCA was present in 56 patients (79%), left-AAOCA in 11 patients (15%) and single coronary ostium AAOCA in 4 patients (6%). Coronary unroofing was performed in 72% of the patients, coronary reimplantation in 28% and an additional neo-ostium patchplasty in 13% of the patients. In 39% of the patients, a concomitant cardiac procedure was performed. During follow-up, no cardiovascular-related death was observed. Three patients (4.2%) had a myocardial infarction and underwent postoperative coronary artery bypass grafting. Six patients (8.5%) needed postoperative temporary mechanical circulatory support. Among the 34 symptomatic patients who underwent isolated AAOCA correction, 70% were completely asymptomatic after surgery, 12% showed symptom improvement and no symptom improvement was observed in 18% of the patients (median follow-up 3.5 years, range 0.3-11.1). CONCLUSIONS: Correction for AAOCA can be safely performed with or without concomitant cardiac procedures. Performing AAOCA correction leads to a significant improvement in symptoms for most patients.

Pulmonary artery diameter: means and normal limits-assessment by computed tomography angiography.

OBJECTIVES: Normal pulmonary artery (PA) diameter remains blurred and the definitions of PA aneurysm are heterogenous. We aimed to assess PA diameters, identify a threshold for normal diameters, define PA aneurysms, possible predictors of PA size and evaluate the correlation with mid-ascending aortic diameters. METHODS: Between April 2018 and August 2019, 497 consecutive patients who underwent whole-body computed tomographic angiography were reviewed. Clinical and imaging data were collected from our institutional database. Precise three-dimensional centreline measurements were taken. Linear regression analysis was performed to detect parameters associated with PA diameter. A two-stage model was created to identify potential predictors and the resulting statistically significant interactions were tested. Data were grouped and PA, standard deviation, and upper normal limits were calculated. RESULTS: Among 497 patients with an average age of 51.4 (20.2) (74.6% males), the mean PA diameter measured 32.0 (4.6) mm [female: 31.2 (4.7) mm vs male: 32.2 (4.5) mm; P = 0.032]. The mean PA length, left PA and right PA diameters were similar between male and female patients. We found a significant correlation (r = 0.352; P < 0.001) between the PAs and mid-ascending aortic diameters. Body surface area (P = 0.032, ß = 4.52 [0.40; 8.64] 95% CI) was the only significant influencing variable for PA diameter. CONCLUSIONS: The normal mean PA diameter in a reference cohort is 32.0 (4.6) mm. Body surface area is the only influencing variable of PA diameter. The normal diameters measured and corresponding upper limits of normal revealed that a PA aneurysm should not be considered below a threshold of 45 mm.