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.

Single-centre experience with the frozen elephant trunk technique in 251 patients over 15 years.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to present our 15-year experience (2001-2015) with the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique. METHODS: A total of 251 patients (82 with aortic aneurysms, 96 with acute aortic dissection type A, 4 with acute type B dissections, 52 with chronic aortic dissection type A, 17 with chronic type B dissection and 67 redo cases) underwent FET implantation with either the custom-made Chavan-Haverich (n = 66), the Jotec E-vita (n = 31) or the Vascutek Thoraflex hybrid (n = 154) prosthesis. The cases were assigned to an early period (2001-2011) and a contemporary period (2012-present). RESULTS: Mean cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, circulatory arrest time and selective antegrade cerebral perfusion time were 241 ± 72, 125 ± 59, 56 ± 30 and 81 ± 34 min, respectively. Incidence of rethoracotomy for bleeding, stroke, spinal cord injury, prolonged ventilatory support (>96 h) and long-term dialysis were 18, 14, 2, 24 and 2%, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate was 11% (in acute aortic dissection type A, 12%). Of the 2 patients with graft infections, 1 died and the other had a protracted hospital stay. There were 49 second-stage procedures in the downstream aorta: either open surgical [n = 25 (thoraco-abdominal, n = 15; descending, n = 6; infrarenal, n = 4)] or transfemoral endovascular (n = 23). Elective thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair R implantation was successful in all 23 cases. CONCLUSIONS: FET results are comparable with those of the published results of the conventional elephant trunk technique. FET is an ideal landing zone for subsequent transfemoral endovascular completion. Patients with graft infections may have dismal results.

Total aortic arch replacement with a novel 4-branched frozen elephant trunk prosthesis: Single-center results of the first 100 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Combined disease of the aortic arch and the proximal descending aorta remains a surgical challenge. The Thoraflex Hybrid graft (Vascutek, Inchinnan, United Kingdom) consists of a 4-branched graft with a stent graft at the distal end allowing a total aortic arch replacement, including the origins of the supra-aortic vessels combined with endoluminal treatment of the proximal descending aorta. We present the midterm results of our first 100 patients who were treated with this frozen elephant trunk prosthesis. METHODS: From April 2010 to October 2014, 100 patients (65 men aged 59 ± 14 years) underwent operation (37 acute dissections, 31 chronic dissections, and 32 aneurysms). Fifty-four percent of patients received concomitant cardiac procedures, and 28% were reoperations. RESULTS: The perioperative mortality was 7% (n = 7). Midterm survival after a follow-up of 3.1 ± 1.4 years was 81% (n = 81). Mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 243 ± 61 minutes, cardiac ischemia time was 101 ± 65 minutes, and circulatory arrest time was 51 ± 20 minutes. Aortic root replacement was performed in 41 patients (n = 41; valve-sparing: 30% [n = 30]). Twenty-two percent of patients underwent secondary aortic reinterventions during follow-up (15% planned second stage operations). Sixty percent of reinterventions were performed via endovascular approach. Acute dissection patients needed significantly fewer reinterventions (n = 3; 8%). CONCLUSIONS: The Thoraflex Hybrid graft adds to the frozen elephant trunk concept for treating aortic arch and descending aortic disease. Implantation of the Thoraflex Hybrid graft resulted in excellent outcomes and beneficial aortic remodeling during follow-up. This graft increases surgeons' armamentarium in the treatment of complex and diverse aortic arch pathology.

Aortic valve replacement with sutureless prosthesis: better than root enlargement to avoid patient-prosthesis mismatch?

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement in patients with a small aortic annulus may result in patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). Aortic root enlargement (ARE) can reduce PPM, but leads to extended cardiac ischaemia times. Sutureless valves have the potential to prevent PPM while reducing cardiac ischaemia times. METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2011, a total of 128 patients with a small aortic annulus underwent surgery for aortic valve stenosis at our centre. Thirty-six (17% male, n = 6) patients received conventional valve replacement with ARE and 92 (16% male, n = 18) subjects received sutureless valve implantation (Sorin Perceval). We conducted a comparative, retrospective study with follow-up. RESULTS: The sutureless group showed a significantly higher age (79 years) than the ARE patients (62 years, P < 0.001) and received significantly more concomitant cardiac procedures (33%, n = 30 vs 6%, n = 2, P = 0.001). The mean operation, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were significantly lower in sutureless patients (147 ± 42, 67 ± 26 and 35 ± 13 min, respectively) than in ARE patients (181 ± 41, 105 ± 29 and 70 ± 19 min, respectively, P < 0.001). The mean postoperative effective orifice area (EOA) indexed to the body surface area was 0.91 ± 0.2 cm(2)/m(2) in ARE patients and 0.83 ± 0.14 cm(2)/m(2) in sutureless patients (P = 0.040). The rate of patients with severe PPM was 6% (n = 2) in ARE patients and 11% (n = 8%) in sutureless patients (not significant, n.s.). The 30-day mortality rates were 2% (n = 2) in sutureless patients and 6% (n = 2) in ARE patients (n.s.). The 1- and 5-year survival rates of the sutureless group were 92 and 54% years, respectively, whereas the 1- and 5-year survival rates of the ARE group were 76% (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: Although the sutureless valve patients received significantly more concomitant procedures, all operation-associated times were significantly shorter. Despite sutureless valve patients being older, the 30-day mortality and survival rates were comparable in the two groups. Since the indexed EOA was only slightly lower and the incidence of severe PPM was not significantly higher in the sutureless valve patients, we conclude that sutureless valve implantation is an alternative to conventional ARE to treat a small aortic annulus and avoid PPM, especially in geriatric patients who benefit from the quick implantation process.

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.