Is Bentall Procedure Still the Gold Standard for Acute Aortic Dissection with Aortic Root Involvement?

INTRODUCTION: The "ideal" treatment of acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) with dissected and dilated root is controversial. We compared the outcome of classical Bentall procedure (biological and mechanical) with valve-sparing David procedure. METHODS: Between January 2002 and July 2011, 119 patients with AADA and aortic root involvement underwent surgery at our center. Thirty-one patients (group 1) received biological conduits, 41 (group 2) received mechanical conduits, and 47 (group 3) underwent David procedures. RESULTS: Cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and circulatory arrest times were 151 ± 52, 232 ± 84, and 36 ± 30 minutes (group 1); 148 ± 44, 237 ± 91, and 45 ± 29 minutes (group 2); and 160 ± 46, 231 ± 63, and 35 ± 17 minutes (group 3), respectively. The 30-day mortality rates were 32.3% (group 1), 22% (group 2), and 12.8% (group 3). The 1-year rates for freedom from valve-related reoperation were 100% (group 1), 92.5% (group 2), and 95.2% (group 3) (p = 0.172). The 1-year survival rates were 61% (group 1), 61% (group 2), and 84.1% (group 3) (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Even in AADA patients with root involvement, David procedure has acceptable results. David procedure (if possible) or a Bio-Bentall (for pathological valves) seems to be the optimal technique.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with self-anchoring Perceval valve.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Although minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been proposed to cause less morbidity in patients, it still has not seen broad application. The study aim was to evaluate the implantation of the self-anchoring aortic valve (Perceval S; Sorin) via a mini-sternotomy. METHODS: As a part of a multicenter, European, prospective, non-randomized, clinical trial, 35 patients (30 females, five males; mean age 80 +/- 4 years) with isolated aortic valve stenosis (mean gradient 48 +/- 21 mm Hg) were operated on at the authors' center. Perceval S self-anchoring valves were implanted following a mini-sternotomy, extracorporeal circulation (ECC), aortic cross-clamping, cardioplegic arrest and removal of the calcified native valve. The mean EuroSCORE and STS score were 12 +/- 9% and 4 +/- 2%, respectively. RESULTS: There were no failures of deployment, and nor was there any intra-procedure or 30-day mortality. The mean ECC-time was 70 +/- 24 min, and cross-clamp time 34 +/- 10 min. The valve implantation time was 9 +/- 5 min. Perioperative echocardiography revealed no significant aortic insufficiency or paravalvular leakage. The postoperative mean gradient was 16 +/- 6 mmHg. At follow up, there was no paravalvular leakage or significant valvular insufficiency. No migration or dislodgement of the prosthesis occurred. CONCLUSION: This trial highlights the advantages of the Perceval S self-anchoring valve which, technically is a more reproducible alternative for minimally invasive AVR. As the valve does not need to be sutured, the limited exposure is not a disadvantage even in patients with calcified or small aortic roots. This also potentially reduces the cross-clamp and ECC-times. This valve may enable a broader application of minimally invasive AVR.

Aortic root reoperation: a technical challenge.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: It is well known that aortic root re-replacement presents a formidable technical challenge. Thus, the study aim was to describe the authors' experience with this high-risk cohort. METHODS: Between August 1996 and January 2009, a total of 26 patients (mean age 51 years; range: 16-72 years) underwent aortic root re-replacement surgery at the authors' institution. Previous aortic root operations included mechanical valved conduit (n = 9), tissue valved conduit (n = 5), Ross procedure (n = 4), homograft (n = 4), David procedure (n = 2) and Yacoub procedure (n = 2). The indications for surgery included endocarditis (n = 16), Ross procedure failure (n = 4), valve degeneration (n = 3), anastomotic aneurysm (n = 2), and severe valve insufficiency (n = 1). RESULTS: The reoperations performed were classified as follows: aortic homograft (n = 11), mechanical conduit (n = 9), tissue valved conduit (n = 4) and David procedure (n = 2). The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 219 min (range: 101-398 min), and the mean cross-clamp time 142 min (range: 89-253 min). The mean ICU stay was 8 days (range: 1-45 days), and the mean hospital stay 20 days (range: 3-64 days). Four rethoracotomies were performed for postoperative bleeding or tamponade (14%). Two patients (8%) died within 30 days of surgery, and three (12%) required pacemaker implantation due to atrioventricular block (grade III). CONCLUSION: Aortic root reoperation, even in the setting of endocarditis, can be carried out with excellent results. The major goals of this concept include a clinical examination and preoperative diagnosis, in addition to computed tomography to identify possible pitfalls during re-sternotomy. Care must also be taken to provide adequate myocardial and organ protection, by utilizing blood cardioplegia and individual selective perfusion techniques.

Elective David I Procedure Has Excellent Long-Term Results: 20-Year Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: We present our results after elective, isolated David I procedures over the past 20 years. METHODS: Between 1993 and 2015, 197 patients (mean age 46 ± 17 years, 73% men) underwent isolated aortic valve reimplantation using straight tube grafts (David I procedure). Sixty patients (31%) had Marfan syndrome, and 24 (12%) had a bicuspid aortic valve. Twenty-four patients (12%) were operated through upper mini-sternotomy. RESULTS: There were no perioperative deaths. Stroke rate was 1% (2 of 197). Discharge echocardiography showed none to trivial aortic regurgitation (AR) in 71% (139 of 197 patients) and mild AR in 26% (51 of 197 patients). Thirty-two patients (16%) died during follow-up (9.0 ± 5.5 years after operation). One death was aortic valve related. Twenty-six patients (13%) underwent aortic valve reoperations during follow-up (5.5 ± 5.0 years after operation). Late endocarditis occurred in 2 patients (1.0%). More than trivial AR at discharge predicted a higher reoperation rate. In 144 non-reoperated survivors, echocardiography showed none to trivial AR in 56 (39%), mild AR in 53 (37%), moderate AR in 19 (6.3%), and severe AR in 4 (2.7%) of the patients after 12 ± 5.3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The valve-sparing David I procedure has excellent short- and long-term results. Erosion due to supposed leaflet contact with the straight tube graft was not observed in any patient, proving that using a straight graft has no negative impact on the leaflets. The "spared valve" (being native living tissue) seems to be more resistant to infection than prosthetic valves.

Complex aortic arch repair in a patient with Takayasu's disease presenting with acute aortic dissection type Stanford A and complete collateral perfusion of the brain.

We describe a rare case of a 46-year old woman suffering from Takayasu's disease. She had undergone aorto-biaxillary bypass and aorto-cerebral bypass surgery in 1985 for occlusive arterial disease and developed a large ascending pseudoaneurysm of the aorto-biaxillary bypass. The aorto-cerebral bypass and right axillary bypass were occluded. Native supra-aortic arteries were found to be proximally occluded and arterial blood supply to the brain was maintained by a dense arterial collateral network. The patient did not show neurological deficits and was able to work using both arms without restrictions. She refused early surgery but suffered from acute aortic dissection type Stanford A shortly after. Supracommissural ascending aortic and aortic arch repair under deep hypothermic circulatory arrest with no additional bypass to the head vessels was performed. This case demonstrates the significance of aortic complications in Takayasu's disease and the effectiveness of collateral brain perfusion in selected patients.

Impact of sinuses of Valsalva on prosthesis durability in patients undergoing ascending aorta and aortic valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards bioprosthesis: a propensity score-based study.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of sinuses of Valsalva on aortic bioprosthesis durability has not been investigated so far. The aim of this study was to compare durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic bioprosthesis in patients undergoing aortic valve and ascending aorta replacement as a composite bioconduit (Group A, case group) versus patients undergoing separate replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta, with preservation of the aortic root (Group B, control group), between January 2000 and January 2014. METHODS: Records of Group A (n = 133) and Group B (n = 162) patients were retrospectively reviewed. End-points were evaluated among groups in three ways: before and after propensity score 1:1 matching (Group A, n = 94; Group B, n = 94 patients) and after patient stratification through quintiles of propensity scores. RESULTS: There was no difference among groups regarding mean and maximal trans-prosthetic pressure gradients at discharge (P = 0.07 and 0.45, respectively). Maximal trans-prosthetic gradients were lower in Group A patients at last control (P = 0.03). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was due to prosthesis regurgitation (Group A, n = 5; Group B, n = 1), stenosis (Group A, n = 2; Group B, n = 5) or combined (Group A, n = 4; Group B, n = 2). After a mean follow-up of 68 ± 42 months, there was no difference among groups, at 5 and 12 years, regarding mortality, freedom from SVD, from redo aortic valve replacement for SVD and cardiac redo of any type, before and after matching and after stratification according to quintiles of propensity scores. CONCLUSIONS: Within the 12-year follow-up, the absence of the sinuses of Valsalva seems to have no influence on durability of Carpentier Edwards aortic bioprosthesis. Longer follow-up may be warranted.

Total aortic arch repair: risk factor analysis and follow-up in 199 patients.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic arch surgery is associated with substantial perioperative risks. New prostheses as well as novel perfusion techniques have been developed to reduce the risks of these procedures. The routine application of these new techniques warrants reassessment of risk factors of aortic arch repair. METHODS: Between April 2010 and December 2015, 199 patients [61% male, median age 63 years (interquartile range 52-70 years)] underwent total aortic arch repair in our institution. Forty-four per cent of the patients presented with acute aortic dissections (ADs, 32% with malperfusion), 22% with chronic aortic dissections (CDs), 34% with degenerative aneurysms, 24% underwent reoperations. Our surgical technique involved cold blood cardioplegia for cardiac procedures, non-cardioplegic continuous myocardial blood perfusion during aortic arch repair and early lower body reperfusion after distal aortic arch reconstruction. Anastomosis of head vessels is performed at the end of the procedure. RESULTS: Forty-four per cent of patients underwent aortic root surgery, 90% received a classical elephant trunk (ET) or frozen elephant trunk (FET). Median (interquartile range) cardiopulmonary bypass time, cardiac ischaemia time, hypothermic circulatory arrest time and selective antegrade cerebral perfusion time were 248 min (204-302), 105 min (51-150), 47 min (35-61) and 93 min (72-115), respectively. Operative mortality was 16%, stroke occurred in 10%, dialysis in 21% and spinal cord injury in 5%. Independent risk factors for mortality were age, rethoracotomy for bleeding, postoperative dialysis, maximum lactate value and maximum creatinine kinase-MB (CK-MB) value. 'Beating heart' aortic arch surgery significantly reduced the risk of mortality. Malperfusion syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting were preoperative predictors of stroke. CD, preoperative renal dysfunction, operation time, rethoracotomy for bleeding and low cardiac output syndrome were risk factors for postoperative dialysis. Freedom from aortic reoperation was 91% (AD), 66% (CD) and 70% (aneurysm) after 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic arch repair remains a high-risk procedure, especially in multisegment aortic disease. Several peri- and postoperative factors predicted adverse outcome, indicating the need to further improve perioperative management (e.g. organ protection). Indications for FET treatment have to be thoroughly investigated (e.g. FET in CDs).

Do not leave the heart arrested. Non-cardioplegic continuous myocardial perfusion during complex aortic arch repair improves cardiac outcome.

OBJECTIVES: Myocardial protection with cardioplegia alone may be inadequate during complex aortic arch surgery, potentially resulting in postoperative myocardial insufficiency. We hypothesized that non-cardioplegic continuous myocardial perfusion (CMP) is feasible and safe to protect the heart while operating on the aortic arch, and improves cardiac outcome. METHODS: Between April 2010 and April 2014, 144 patients (60% male, age: 60 ± 13 years) underwent complex aortic arch repair in our institution using prefabricated, branched aortic arch grafts. In 36 patients, the hearts were protected with a combination of cardioplegic cardiac arrest during cardiac procedures and subsequent non-cardioplegic CMP group during aortic arch repair. In 108 patients, myocardial protection was achieved by cardioplegic arrest (CA group) only. RESULTS: Preoperative risk factors were comparable in both groups. Acute aortic dissection was the indication for surgery in 42% (CMP) and 44% (CA) of patients; 22% (CMP) and 29% (CA) of patients underwent reoperations. Concomitant cardiac procedures were similar. CMP patients received a frozen elephant trunk more frequently (89 vs 66%, P = 0.0096). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (242 ± 50 vs 264 ± 68 min; P = 0.046), and cardiac ischaemic time (49 ± 32 vs 149 ± 56 min, P < 0.0001) were significantly lower in the CMP group. There were no conversions to CA in the CMP group. Aortic arch repair was not prolonged by CMP. Low cardiac output syndrome occurred less frequently in the CMP group (3 vs 22%, P = 0.0052). Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower in the CMP group (6 vs 21%, P = 0.040). There were no cardiac deaths in the CMP group (0 vs 9%, P = 0.067). Neurological outcome was comparable. Blood loss was higher in the CA group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Routinely protecting the heart during complex aortic arch repair with non-cardioplegic CMP is a valuable new concept. The CMP technique is feasible and safe, does not prolong aortic arch repair, reduces myocardial damage and improves cardiac outcome. Further evaluation in a larger patient cohort is warranted to establish this novel technique.

Minimally invasive valve sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) is safe.

OBJECTIVE: Even though minimally invasive cardiac surgery may reduce morbidity, this approach is not routinely performed for aortic root replacements. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the safety and feasibility of valve sparing aortic root replacement via an upper mini-sternotomy up to the 3(rd) intercostal space. METHODS: Between April 2011 and March 2014, 26 patients (22 males, age 47.6±13 years) underwent elective minimally invasive aortic valve sparing root replacement (David procedure, group A). Twelve patients underwent additional leaflet repair. Concomitant procedures were: four proximal aortic arch replacements and one coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to the proximal right coronary artery (RCA). During the same time period, 14 patients (ten males, age 64.2±9.5 years) underwent elective David procedure via median full sternotomy (group B). Concomitant procedures included six proximal aortic arch replacements. Although the patient cohorts were small, the results of these two groups were compared. RESULTS: In group A, there were no intra-operative conversions to full sternotomy. The aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were 115.6±30.3 and 175.8±41.9 min, respectively. One patient was re-opened (via same access) due to post-operative bleeding. The post-operative ventilation time and hospital stay were 0.5±0.3 and 10.4±6.8 days, respectively. There was no 30-day mortality. The patient questionnaire showed that the convalescence time was approximately two weeks. In group B: the cross-clamp and CPB times were 114.1±19.9 and 163.0±24.5 min, respectively. One patient was re-opened (7.1%) due to post-operative bleeding. The post-operative ventilation time and hospital stay were 0.6±0.7 and 14.2±16.7 days, respectively. There was no 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive valve sparing aortic root replacement can be safely performed in selected patients. The results are comparable to those operated via a full sternotomy. The key to success is a 'step by step' technique of moving from minimally invasive aortic valve replacements (AVR) to more demanding aortic root replacements. Meticulous hemostasis & attention to surgical details is of utmost importance to prevent perioperative complications.

Total aortic arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk in acute type A aortic dissections: are we pushing the limits too far?†.

OBJECTIVES: Acute type A aortic dissection (AADA) is a surgical emergency. In patients with aortic arch and descending aorta (DeBakey type I) involvement, performing a total aortic arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk (FET) for supposedly better long-term results is controversial. We hereby present our results. METHODS: From February 2004 to August 2013, 52 patients with acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I received a FET procedure at our centre (43 males, age 59.21 ± 11.67 years). All patients had an intimal tear in the aortic arch and/or proximal descending aorta. Concomitant procedures were Bentall (n = 15) and aortic valve repair (n = 30). RESULTS: Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), X-clamp and cardiac arrest times were 262 ± 64, 159 ± 45 and 55 ± 24 min, respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 13% (n = 7). Stroke and re-thoracotomy for bleeding were 12% (n = 6) and 23% (n = 12), respectively. Postoperative recurrent nerve palsy and spinal cord injury rates were 10% (5 of 52) and 4% (2 of 52), respectively. Follow-up was 40 ± 24 months. During follow-up, no patient died and no patient required a reoperation for the aortic arch. CONCLUSIONS: Our results with FET in AADA show acceptable results. Total aortic arch replacement with an FET in AADA patients does demand high technical skills. In spite of this, we believe FET improves long-term outcomes in cases of AADA with intima tear or re-entry in the aortic arch or the descending aorta (DeBakey type I). Modern grafts with four side branches as well as sewing collars for the distal anastomosis have helped to further 'simplify' the FET implantation. However, such a strategy is not appropriate in all AADA cases; it should be implemented only in experienced centres and only if absolutely necessary.

The elephant trunk is freezing: The Hannover experience.

BACKGROUND: The "elephant trunk" (ET) technique traditionally has been performed to treat complex aortic diseases involving the aortic arch and the descending aorta. Despite the fact that, in recent years, the "frozen elephant trunk" (FET) technique has been used increasingly for such pathologies, discussion is still ongoing in the surgical community regarding which of the 2 techniques is better. We compared our results using the classic ET versus the FET technique. METHODS: From August 2001 to March 2013, a total of 277 patients underwent total aortic arch replacement and either ET (group A) or FET (group B) implantation. In group A, 97 patients (59 men; age 59.7 ± 12.7 years; 44.3% with aneurysm; 55.6% with dissection [48.45% acute]) underwent an ET procedure; 21.64% were reoperations. In group B, 180 patients underwent an FET procedure (126 men; age 59.8 ± 13.2 years; 34.4% with aneurysm; 63.3% with dissection [35% acute]); 30% were reoperations. RESULTS: In group A, in-hospital mortality was 24.7%; postoperative stroke rate was 12.4%. During follow-up, 27.8% underwent a second-stage procedure. In group B, in-hospital mortality was 12.2%; postoperative stroke rate was 13.3%. During follow-up, 27.7% patients underwent further interventions in the downstream aorta. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with combined aortic arch and descending aortic aneurysms limited to the proximal descending aorta, the FET approach potentially allows for single-stage therapy, whereas a second-stage operation is inevitable with the classic ET approach. Moreover, owing to the availability of prefabricated, easy-to-use, FET, hybrid prostheses that result in significantly better outcomes in patients who have acute aortic dissection, type A, and if necessary, and provide an ideal "landing zone" for future endovascular completion, the classic ET procedure is "freezing," in the sense that it is being replaced by the FET approach.

Is the branched graft technique better than the en bloc technique for total aortic arch replacement?

OBJECTIVES: Total aortic arch replacement remains a surgical challenge. For the reimplantation of the supra-aortic vessels, either the en bloc (island) or branched graft technique (BGT) is used. The BGT has been proposed to have several advantages over the classical island technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the perioperative and mid-term follow-up results of these two methods. METHODS: From March 2006 to December 2010, 103 patients (74.8% male, age 59 ± 12 years) underwent total aortic arch replacement. In 45.6% of the patients (n = 47), branched grafts (Group A, 35 males, 58 ± 13 years) were used, while 54.4% of the patients (n = 56) underwent en bloc technique (Group B, 42 males, 60 ± 12 years). Concomitant procedures were performed as necessary. Twenty-nine (28.2%) patients had an aortic aneurysm [Group A: n = 12 (25.5%), Group B: n = 17 (30.4%)] and 74 (71.8%) patients had an aortic dissection [Group A: n = 35 (74.5%), Group B: n = 39 (69.6%)]. Thirty-one (30.1%) of these patients [Group A: 17 (36.2%), Group B: 14 (25%)] had undergone previous cardiac operations. RESULTS: Cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp and circulatory arrest times were 243 ± 71, 140 ± 55 and 53 ± 28 min in Group A and 249 ± 76, 147 ± 54 and 57 ± 30 min in Group B, respectively (P = n.s.). The overall 30-day mortality was 10.6% in Group A and 16.1% in Group B (P = n.s.). The postoperative stroke rate was 4.3% in Group A and 3.8% in Group B, respectively (P = n.s.). Rethoracotomy due to bleeding was 27.7% in Group A and 23.2% in Group B (P = n.s.). At a mean follow-up of 4.0 years, 61.7% of the patients in Group A were alive and 29.8% had undergone operations on the downstream aorta. In Group B, 60.7% of the patients were alive at a mean follow-up of 4.4 years and 20.0% had undergone operations on the downstream aorta. None of the patients in Group B developed further pathological changes in the 'island' or the proximal supra-aortic vessels. CONCLUSIONS: The BGT is not inferior perioperatively or in the mid-term follow-up compared with the classical island technique. Thus, this technique can be used during total arch replacements in most aortic arch pathologies.

Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: are sutureless valves the future?

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in geriatric patients (>75 years) with small aortic roots is a challenge. Patient-prosthesis mismatch and the long cross-clamp time necessary for stentless valves or root enlargement are matters of concern. We compared the results of AVR with sutureless valves (Sorin Perceval), against those with conventional biological valves. METHODS: Between April 2007 and December 2012, 120 isolated AVRs were performed in patients with a small annulus (<22 mm) at our centre. In 70 patients (68 females, age 77.4 ± 5.5 years), conventional valves (C group) and in 50 patients (47 females, age 79.8 ± 4.5 years), sutureless valves (P group) were implanted. The Logistic EuroSCORE of the C group was 16.7 ± 10.4 and that of the P group 20.4 ± 10.7, (P = 0.054). Minimal-access surgery was performed in 4.3% (3/70) patients in the C group and 72% (36/50) patients in the P group. RESULTS: The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times of the C group were 75.3 ± 23 and 50.3 ± 14.2 min vs 58.7 ± 20.9 and 30.1 ± 9 min in the P group, (P < 0.001). In the C group, two annulus enlargements were performed. Thirty-day mortality was 4.3% (n = 3) in the C group and 0 in the P group, (n.s.). At follow-up (up to 5 years), mortalities were 17.4% (n = 12) in the C group and 14% (n = 7) in the P group, (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the advantages of sutureless valves for geriatric patients with small aortic roots reflected by shorter cross-clamp and CPB times, even though most of these patients were operated on via a minimally invasive access. Moreover, due to the absence of a sewing ring, these valves are also almost stentless, with greater effective orifice area (EOA) for any given size. This may potentially result in better haemodynamics even without the root enlargement. This is of advantage, as several studies have shown that aortic root enlargement can significantly increase the risks of AVR. Moreover, as seen in this series, these valves may also enable a broader application of minimally invasive AVR.