Matched comparison between external aortic root support and valve-sparing root replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Differences in indication and technique make a randomised comparison between valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) and personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) challenging. We performed a propensity score (PS)-matched comparison of PEARS and VSRR for syndromic root aneurysm. METHODS: Patients in the PEARS 200 Database and Aortic Valve Insufficiency and ascending aorta Aneurysm InternATiOnal Registry (undergoing VSRR) with connective tissue disease operated electively for root aneurysm <60 mm with aortic regurgitation (AR) <1/4 were included. Using a PS analysis, 80 patients in each cohort were matched. Survival, freedom from reintervention and from AR ≥2/4 were estimated using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 25 and 55 months for 159 PEARS and 142 VSRR patients. Seven (4.4%) patients undergoing PEARS required an intervention for coronary injury or impingement, resulting in one death (0.6%). After VSRR, there were no early deaths, 10 (7%) reinterventions for bleeding and 1 coronary intervention. Survival for matched cohorts at 5 years was similar (PEARS 98% vs VSRR 99%, p=0.99). There was no difference in freedom from valve or ascending aortic/arch reintervention between matched groups. Freedom from AR ≥2/4 at 5 years in the matched cohorts was 97% for PEARS vs 92% for VSRR (p=0.55). There were no type A dissections. CONCLUSIONS: VSRR and PEARS offer favourable mid-term survival, freedom from reintervention and preservation of valve function. Both treatments deserve their place in the surgical repertoire, depending on a patient's disease stage. This study is limited by its retrospective nature and different follow-ups in both cohorts.

Controlled Trial Data Casts Doubt on the Supposed Benefit of Lung Metastasectomy. Comment on Chandra et al. The Colorectal Cancer Tumor Microenvironment and Its Impact on Liver and Lung Metastasis. Cancers 2021, 13, 6206.

We read with interest the comprehensive review by Chandra et al. [...].

Personalized external aortic root support in aneurysm disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To bring together and annotate publications about personalised external aortic root support reported in the 18 months preceding submission. RECENT FINDINGS: The total number of personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) operations is now approaching 700 in 30 centres in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and Slovakia. There are continued reports of stability of aortic dimensions and aortic valve function with the only exceptions known being where the surgeon has deviated from the instructions for use of the device. The median root diameter of Marfan patients having PEARS was 47 mm suggesting that the existing criterion of 50 mm is due for reconsideration. The peri-operative mortality currently estimated to be less than 0.3%. The first recipient remains alive and well after 18 years. The use of PEARS as an adjunct to the Ross operation to support the pulmonary autograft is being explored in several centres. SUMMARY: The operation requires proctoring and adherence to a strict operative protocol and with those precautions excellent results are attained. The evidence and opinions provided in the cited publications indicate that PEARS is a proven and successful prophylactic operation for aortic root aneurysm.

Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) randomized controlled trial: a systematic review of published responses.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the nature and tone of the published responses to the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Published articles that cited the PulMiCC trial were identified from Clarivate Web of Science (©. Duplicates and self-citations were excluded and relevant text was extracted. Four independent researchers rated the extracts independently using agreed scales for the representativeness of trial data and the textual tone. The ratings were aggregated and summarized. Two PulMiCC authors carried out a thematic analysis of the extracts. RESULTS: Sixty-four citations were identified and relevant text was extracted and examined. The consensus rating for data inclusion was a median of 0.25 out of 6 (range 0-5.25, interquartile range 0-1.5) and, for textual tone, the median rating was 1.87 out of 6 (range 0-5.75, interquartile range 1-3.5). The majority of citations did not provide adequate representation of the PulMiCC data and the overall textual tone was dismissive. Although some were supportive, many discounted the findings because the trial closed early and was underpowered to show non-inferiority. Two misinterpreted the authors' conclusions but there was an acceptance that 5-year survival was much higher than widely assumed. CONCLUSIONS: Published comments reveal a widespread reluctance to consider seriously the results of a carefully conducted randomized trial. This may be because the results challenge accepted practice because of 'motivated reasoning', but there is a widespread misunderstanding of the fact that though PulMiCC with 93 patients was underpowered to test non-inferiority, it still provides reliable evidence to undermine the widespread belief in a major survival benefit from metastasectomy.