Performance of the heart team approach in daily clinical practice in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The heart team (HT) approach plays a key role in selecting the optimal treatment strategy for patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, little is known about the HT decision process and its impact on outcomes. The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with the HT decision and evaluate clinical outcomes according to the treatment choice. METHODS: The study included a total of 286 consecutive patients with AS referred for discussion in the weekly HT meeting in a cardiovascular institute over 2 years. Patients were stratified according to the selected therapeutic approach: medical treatment (MT), surgical (SAVR), or transcatheter (TAVR) aortic valve replacement. Baseline characteristics involved in making a therapeutic choice were identified and a decision-making tree was built using classification and regression tree methodology. RESULTS: Based on HT discussion, 53 patients were assigned to SAVR, 210 to TAVR, and 23 to MT. Older patients (≥88 years old) were mainly assigned to TAVR or MT according to the logistic EuroSCORE (

Single-center experience and evolution of technique with the E-vita Open prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: We report our experience in aortic arch repair with the E-vita Open hybrid prosthesis and describe the changes in our technique over time. METHODS: Between October 2013 and December 2019, 56 patients underwent a total aortic arch replacement with the E-vita Open hybrid prosthesis. The main indications were thoracic aorta aneurysm (n = 27) and acute type A aortic dissection (n = 18). We analyze the technique and results in the overall series, and compare both between our early (group I, 25 patients) and late experience (group II, 31 patients). RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality was 7.1% (n = 4), and permanent stroke and spinal cord injury were 3.6% and 1.8%, respectively. Fifteen patients (26.8%) underwent a planned second procedure on the distal aorta: 13 endovascular, 1 open, and 1 hybrid. Survival at 1 and 3 years was 90.7% and 80.7%, respectively. Group II included more patients with acute dissection (45.2% vs 16%, P = .02), higher rates of bilateral cerebral perfusion (100% vs 64%, P < .001), left subclavian artery perfusion during lower body circulatory arrest (87.1% vs 0%, P < .001), early reperfusion (96.8% vs 40%, P < .001), and zone 0 to 2 distal anastomosis (100% vs 72%, P = .02). In-hospital mortality (3.2% vs 12%) and permanent stroke (0% vs 8%) tended to be lower in group II. CONCLUSIONS: Total arch replacement with E-vita Open hybrid prosthesis in complex thoracic aorta disease is safe. One-stage treatment is feasible when pathology does not extend beyond the proximal descending thoracic aorta. In any case, it facilitates subsequent procedures on distal aorta if needed.

Reoperation for composite valve graft failure: Operative results and midterm survival.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The replacement of a failed composite valve graft is technically more demanding and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We present our technique and outcomes for reoperations for composite graft failures. METHODS: Between September 2011 and June 2017, 14 patients underwent a redo composite graft replacement. Twelve patients (85.7%) were male, and mean age was 58.4 years ± 12 standard deviation (SD). One patient had two previous root replacements. Indications for reoperation were endocarditis (8), aortic pseudoaneurysm (3), and aortic prosthesis thrombosis (3). Mean logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II were 30.8% and 14.7%, respectively. RESULTS: A mechanical composite graft was used in 12 patients and biological composite grafts were used in two patients. Hospital mortality was 14.3% (n = 2). One patient (7.1%) required reoperation for bleeding, One patient (7.1%) had mechanical ventilation >24 h, and four patients (28.6%) required implantation of a permanent pacemaker. Median intensive care unit and hospital stays were 3 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1-5) and 10 days (IQR 6.5-38.5). One patient experienced recurrent prosthetic valve endocarditis 14 months after operation. On follow-up, 11 of 12 survivors were in New York Heart Association class I or II. Survival at 3 years was 85.7% ± 9.4% SD. CONCLUSIONS: Composite valve graft replacement can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality with good mid-term survival.

Estenosis valvular tricúspide asociada a cable de marcapasos / Tricuspid valve stenosis due to a pacemaker lead

No disponible

No disponible

Ascending aorta and aortic root reoperations: are outcomes worse than first time surgery?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze surgery and survival data in the midterm after aortic root and (or) ascending aorta reoperations and compare these results with those obtained after first time surgery. METHODS: Over a 6-year period, 365 patients underwent an aortic root and (or) ascending aorta surgery procedure at our center. Mean patient age was 63.1 + or - 25.5 years; 27.1% were women. Fifty-eight patients had had prior ascending aorta and (or) aortic valve surgery (group I) and the remaining 307 patients were assigned to an initial surgery group (II). The reoperative procedures were Bentall in 45 (77.6%), ascending aorta and valve replacement in 8 (13.8%), and ascending aorta replacement in 5 (8.6%). RESULTS: The reoperation group showed a worse preoperative risk profile indicated by a higher logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation: group I (26.9) versus group II (9.9) (p < 0.0001). Hospital mortality was 7 of 58 (12.1%) in group I and 21 of 207 (6.8%) in group II (p = 0.18; relative risk 1.9 [0.8 to 4.6]). After adjusting for the different variables, reoperation could not be identified as an independent predictor of postoperative morbidity. Survival rates (including in-hospital mortality) were lower in group I at one year (77.9 + or - 1.11% vs 91.9 + or - 0.3%) and at 3 years (75.3 + or - 0.11% vs 88.9 + or - 0.03% [log-rank p = 0.005]). In the multivariate analysis, reoperation (p = 0.01; hazard ratio 2.6 [1.2 to 5.3]) was a determining factor for survival once corrected for variables predicting mortality during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperations on the ascending aorta and aortic root showed acceptable morbidity and mortality. Their midterm survival was lower than for patients not requiring a repeat operation.