Outcomes of Deep Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest for Descending and Thoracoabdominal Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) in patients undergoing descending thoracic (DTAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We present our outcomes after open DTAA and TAAA repair with and without DHCA. METHODS: From 1999 to 2022, 81 (38.8%) patients undergoing DTAA or TAAA repair required DHCA because proximal cross-clamping was not feasible or aneurysmal pathology extended into the arch and 128 (61.2%) patients required only distal bypass. Because of intrinsic pathological differences in patients requiring DHCA, confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare groups in lieu of formal hypothesis tests. RESULTS: DHCA patients had more chronic dissections (64.2% vs. 43.8%, 95% CI for difference: 6-35%) and higher body mass indices (29.5 ± 6.8 vs. 27.2 ± 6.6, CI: 26-421%). More non-DHCA patients had medial degeneration (9.9% vs. 31.3%, CI: -33 to -7%). There were 10 (12.4%) in-hospital deaths for the DHCA and 10 (7.8%) for the non-DHCA group (CI: -5 to 14%). Survival at 10 years was 52.6% (CI: 42.1-65.7%) for the non-DHCA group and 48.3% (CI: 40.3-57.9%) for the DHCA group. The only meaningful differences in postoperative outcomes were intensive care unit (5.5 days vs. 6 days, CI: 12-410%) and hospital stay (19 days vs. 12 days, CI: 74-470%), which were longer in the DHCA group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer intensive care unit and hospital length of stays, selective use of DHCA is safe and effective with comparable morbidity and mortality to non-DHCA in open DTAA and TAAA repair.

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.

Use of Impella Devices for Acute Cardiogenic Shock in the Perioperative Period of Cardiac Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The Impella ventricular support system is a device that can be inserted percutaneously or directly across the aortic valve to unload the left ventricle. The purpose of this study is to determine the role of Impella devices in patients with acute cardiogenic shock in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery. METHODS: A retrospective single-surgeon review of 11 consecutive patients who underwent placement of Impella devices in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery was performed. Patient records were evaluated for demographics, indications for placement, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Impella devices were placed for refractory cardiogenic shock preoperatively in 6 patients, intraoperatively in 4 patients, and postoperatively as a rescue in 1 patient. Seven patients received Impella CP, 1 Impella RP, 1 Impella CP and RP, and 2 Impella 5.0. Additionally, 3 patients required preoperative venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO), and 1 patient required intraoperative venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). All Impella devices were removed 1 to 28 days after implantation. Length of stay in the intensive care unit stay ranged from 2 to 53 days (average 23.9±14.6). The 30-day and 1-year mortality were 0%. Ten of 11 patients were alive at 2 years. Also, 1 patient died 18 months after surgery from complications of coronavirus disease (Covid-19). Device-related complications included varying degrees> of hemolysis in 8 patients (73%) and device malfunction in 1 patient (9%). CONCLUSIONS: The Impella ventricular support system can be combined with other mechanical support devices for additional hemodynamic support. All patients demonstrated myocardial recovery with no deaths in the perioperative period and in 1-year of follow-up. Larger studies are necessary to validate these findings.

Use of Impella Devices for Acute Cardiogenic Shock in the Perioperative Period of Cardiac Surgery

ABSTRACT Introduction: The Impella ventricular support system is a device that can be inserted percutaneously or directly across the aortic valve to unload the left ventricle. The purpose of this study is to determine the role of Impella devices in patients with acute cardiogenic shock in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery. Methods: A retrospective single-surgeon review of 11 consecutive patients who underwent placement of Impella devices in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery was performed. Patient records were evaluated for demographics, indications for placement, and postoperative outcomes. Results: Impella devices were placed for refractory cardiogenic shock preoperatively in 6 patients, intraoperatively in 4 patients, and postoperatively as a rescue in 1 patient. Seven patients received Impella CP, 1 Impella RP, 1 Impella CP and RP, and 2 Impella 5.0. Additionally, 3 patients required preoperative venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO), and 1 patient required intraoperative venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). All Impella devices were removed 1 to 28 days after implantation. Length of stay in the intensive care unit stay ranged from 2 to 53 days (average 23.9±14.6). The 30-day and 1-year mortality were 0%. Ten of 11 patients were alive at 2 years. Also, 1 patient died 18 months after surgery from complications of coronavirus disease (Covid-19). Device-related complications included varying degrees> of hemolysis in 8 patients (73%) and device malfunction in 1 patient (9%). Conclusions: The Impella ventricular support system can be combined with other mechanical support devices for additional hemodynamic support. All patients demonstrated myocardial recovery with no deaths in the perioperative period and in 1-year of follow-up. Larger studies are necessary to validate these findings.