Extracorporeal life support after surgical repair for acute type a aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in patients after surgical repair for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) has not been well documented. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the outcomes of ECLS after surgery for ATAAD with data published by October 2023 in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023479955). RESULTS: Twelve observational studies met our eligibility criteria, including 280 patients. Mean age was 55.0 years and women represented 25.3% of the overall population. Although the mean preoperative left ventricle ejection fraction was 59.8%, 60.8% of patients developed left ventricle failure and 34.0% developed biventricular failure. Coronary involvement and malperfusion were found in 37.1% and 25.6%, respectively. Concomitant coronary bypass surgery was performed in 38.5% of patients. Regarding ECLS, retrograde flow (femoral) was present in 39.9% and central cannulation was present in 35.4%. In-hospital mortality was 62.8% and pooled estimate of successful weaning was 50.8%. Neurological complications, bleeding and renal failure were found in 25.9%, 38.7%, and 65.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ECLS after surgical repair for ATAAD remains associated with high rates of in-hospital death and complications, but it still represents a chance of survival in critical situations. ECLS remains a salvage attempt and surgeons should not try to avoid ECLS at all costs after repairing an ATAAD case.

Moderate Aortic Valve Stenosis Is Associated With Increased Mortality Rate and Lifetime Loss: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 409 680 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The mortality risk attributable to moderate aortic stenosis (AS) remains incompletely characterized and has historically been underestimated. We aim to evaluate the association between moderate AS and all-cause death, comparing it with no/mild AS (in a general referral population and in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction). METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review and pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by June 2023 was conducted to evaluate survival outcomes among patients with moderate AS in comparison with individuals with no/mild AS. Ten studies were included, encompassing a total of 409 680 patients (11 527 with moderate AS and 398 153 with no/mild AS). In the overall population, the 15-year overall survival rate was 23.3% (95% CI, 19.1%-28.3%) in patients with moderate AS and 58.9% (95% CI, 58.1%-59.7%) in patients with no/mild aortic stenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.55 [95% CI, 2.46-2.64]; P<0.001). In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the 10-year overall survival rate was 15.5% (95% CI, 10.0%-24.0%) in patients with moderate AS and 37.3% (95% CI, 36.2%-38.5%) in patients with no/mild AS (HR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.69-2.0]; P<0.001). In both populations (overall and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), these differences correspond to significant lifetime loss associated with moderate AS during follow-up (4.4 years, P<0.001; and 1.9 years, P<0.001, respectively). A consistent pattern of elevated mortality rate associated with moderate AS in sensitivity analyses of matched studies was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate AS was associated with higher risk of death and lifetime loss compared with patients with no/mild AS.

Long-term outcomes after recurrent acute thoracic aortic dissection: Insights from the International Registry of Aortic Dissection.

OBJECTIVE: With an aging population and advancements in imaging, recurrence of thoracic aortic dissection is becoming more common. METHODS: All patients enrolled in the International Registry of Aortic Dissection from 1996 to 2023 with type A and type B acute aortic dissection were identified. Among them, initial dissection and recurrent dissection were discerned. The study period was categorized into 3 eras: historic era, 1996 to 2005; middle era, 2006 to 2015; most recent era, 2016 to 2023. Propensity score matching was applied between initial dissection and recurrent dissection. Outcome of interests included long-term survival and cumulative incidence of major aortic events defined by the composite of reintervention, aortic rupture, and new dissection. RESULTS: The proportion of recurrent dissection increased from 5.9% in the historic era to 8.0% in the most recent era in the entire dissection cohort. In patients with type A dissection, propensity score matching between initial dissection and recurrent dissection yielded 326 matched pairs. Kaplan-Meier curves showed similar long-term survival between the 2 groups. However, the cumulative incidence of major aortic events was significantly higher in the recurrent dissection group (40.3% ± 6.2% vs 17.8% ± 5.1% at 4 years in the initial dissection group, P = .02). For type B dissection, 316 matched pairs were observed after propensity score matching. Long-term survival and the incidence of major aortic events were equivalent between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The case volume of recurrent dissection or the ability to detect recurrent dissection has increased over time. Acute type A recurrent dissection was associated with a higher risk of major aortic events than initial dissection. Further judicious follow-up may be crucial after type A recurrent dissection.

Late Outcomes of Surgery Versus Medical Therapy in Patients With Type A Aortic Intramural Hematoma: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

The effect of an initial surgical approach (in comparison with initial medical therapy) in acute type A intramural hematoma remains insufficiently explored. We designed a pooled analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data from studies with follow-up for overall survival (all-cause death). Restricted mean survival time was calculated to evaluate lifetime gain or loss. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I) was used to assess risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was applied to assess certainty of evidence. Eight studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 654 patients (311 patients treated with surgery and 343 patients treated with medical therapy alone). All the studies were non-randomized and observational. The median follow-up was 4.6 years (interquartile range 1.0 to 7.7). Patients who underwent surgery had a significantly lower risk of mortality compared with patients receiving medical therapy alone (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.74, p <0.001). The restricted mean survival time was overall 1.1 years greater with surgery compared with medical therapy, and this difference was statistically significant (p <0.001), which means that surgery is associated with lifetime gain. The overall risk of bias (ROBINS-I) was considered moderate-to-serious and the certainty of evidence (GRADE) was deemed to be low. In conclusion, in the overall follow-up, surgery as the initial approach was associated with better late survival and lifetime gain in comparison with medical therapy alone in the setting of acute type A aortic intramural hematoma; however, high-quality randomized trials are warranted to establish the efficacy of the surgical strategy.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis: Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement demonstrate conflicting evidence, particularly in low-risk patients. We aim to reevaluate the evidence using trial sequential analysis, balancing type I and II errors, and compare with conventional meta-analysis. METHODS: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, which were divided into higher-risk and lower-risk randomized controlled trials according to a pragmatic risk classification. Primary outcomes were death and a composite end point of death or disabling stroke assessed at 1 year and maximum follow-up. Conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed, and the required information size was calculated considering a type I error of 5% and a power of 90%. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials (n = 5274 higher-risk and 3661 lower-risk patients) were included. Higher-risk trials showed no significant reduction in death at 1 year with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (relative risk, 0.93, 95% CI, 0.81-1.08, P = .345). Lower-risk trials suggested lower death risk on conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.47-0.96, P = .031), but trial sequential analysis indicated potential spurious evidence (P = .116), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5944 [59.8%]). For death or disabling stroke at 1 year, higher-risk trials lacked evidence (relative risk, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.79-1.02, P = .108). In lower-risk trials, transcatheter aortic valve implantation indicated lower risk in conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.50-0.93, P = .014), but trial sequential analysis suggested potential spurious evidence (P = .053), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5122 [69.4%]). Follow-up results provided inconclusive evidence for both primary outcomes across risk categories. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional meta-analysis methods may have prematurely declared an early reduction of negative outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement.

Can we safely expand the donation after circulatory death donor heart pool by extending the donor age limit?

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of donor age on outcomes following donation after circulatory death heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to analyze adult recipients who underwent isolated donation after circulatory heart transplantation from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023. The cohort was stratified into 2 groups according to donor age, where advanced donor age was defined as 40 years or more. Outcomes were 90-day and 1-year post-transplant survival. Propensity score matching was performed. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of recipient age on 90-day survival among the recipients with advanced-age donors. RESULTS: A total of 994 recipients were included in the study period, and 161 patients (17.1%) received allografts from advanced-age donors. During the study period, the annual incidence of donation after circulatory heart transplantation with advanced-age donors substantially increased. The recipients with advanced-age donors had similar 90-day and 1-year post-transplant survivals compared with the recipients with younger donors. The comparable 90-day survival persisted in a propensity score-matched comparison. In the subgroup analysis among the recipients with advanced-age donors, the recipients aged 60 years or more had significantly reduced 90-day survival compared with the recipients aged less than 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: The use of appropriately selected donation after circulatory donors aged 40 years or more has similar survival compared with that of younger donors. With careful candidate risk stratification and selection, consideration of using donation after circulatory donors aged more than 40 years may further ameliorate ongoing organ shortage with comparable early post-transplant outcomes.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data of 122 989 Patients With 592 952 Patient-Years.

BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) impacts long-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the association of PPM with mortality, rehospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 2023 (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Sixty-five studies met our eligibility criteria and included 122 989 patients (any PPM: 68 332 patients, 55.6%). At 25 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 11.8% and 20.6% in patients with and without any PPM, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18], P<0.001). At 20 years of follow-up, the survival rates were 19.5%, 12.1%, and 8.8% in patients with no, moderate, and severe PPM, respectively (moderate versus no PPM: HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1.11], P<0.001; severe versus no PPM: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.35], P<0.001). PPM was associated with higher risk of cardiac death, heart failure-related hospitalizations, and aortic valve reinterventions over time (P<0.001). Statistically significant associations between PPM and worse survival were observed regardless of valve type (bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves), contemporary PPM definitions unadjusted and adjusted for body mass index, and PPM quantification method (in vitro, in vivo, Doppler echocardiography). Our meta-regression analysis revealed that populations with more women tend to have higher HRs for all-cause death associated with PPM. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that any degree of PPM is associated with poorer long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement and provide support for implementation of preventive strategies to avoid PPM after surgical aortic valve replacement.

The Clinical Significance of Unplanned Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Aortic Root Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Unexpected coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is occasionally required during aortic root replacement (ARR). However, the impact of unplanned CABG remains unknown. DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective observational study. SETTING: At university-affiliated tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who underwent ARR from 2011 through 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Aortic root replacement with or without unplanned CABG. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 795 patients underwent ARR. Among them, 131 (16.5%) underwent planned concomitant CABG, and 34 (4.3%) required unplanned CABG. The most common indication of unplanned CABG was ventricular dysfunction (33.3%), followed by disease pathology (25.6%), anatomy (15.4%), and surgical complications (10.3%). A vein graft to the right coronary artery was the most commonly performed bypass. Infective endocarditis and aortic dissection were observed in 27.8% and 12.8%, respectively. Prior cardiac surgery was seen in 40.3%. The median follow-up period was 4.3 years. Unplanned CABG was not associated with operative mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% CI 0.33-7.16, p = 0.58) or long-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.89, p = 0.81). Body surface area smaller than 1.7 was independently associated with an increased risk of unplanned CABG (OR 4.51, 95% CI 1.85-11.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned CABG occurred in 4.3% of patients during ARR, but was not associated with operative mortality or long-term mortality. A small body surface area was a factor associated with unplanned CABG.

Outcomes of Aortomitral Continuity Reconstruction During Concomitant Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: To describe outcomes of reconstruction of the aortomitral continuity (AMC) during concomitant aortic and mitral valve replacement (ie, the "Commando" procedure). DESIGN: A retrospective study of consecutive cardiac surgeries from 2010 to 2022. SETTING: At a single institution. PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing double aortic and mitral valve replacement. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were dichotomized by the performance (or not) of AMC reconstruction. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 331 patients underwent double-valve replacement, of whom 21 patients (6.3%) had a Commando procedure. The Commando group was more likely to have had a previous aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) (66.7% v 27.4%, p < 0.001), redo cardiac surgery (71.4% v 31.3%, p < 0.001), and emergent/salvage surgery (14.3% v 1.61%, p = 0.001), whereas surgery was more often performed for endocarditis in the Commando group (52.4% v 22.9%, p = 0.003). The Commando group had higher operative mortality (28.6% v 10.7%, p = 0.014), more prolonged ventilation (61.9% v 31.9%, p = 0.005), longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (312 ± 118 v 218 ± 85 minutes, p < 0.001), and longer ischemic time (252 ± 90 v 176 ± 66 minutes, p < 0.001). Despite increased short-term morbidity in the Commando group, Kaplan-Meier survival estimation showed no difference in long-term survival between each group (p = 0.386, log-rank). On multivariate Cox analysis, the Commando procedure was not associated with an increased hazard of death, compared to MVR + AVR (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% CI: 0.65-2.59, p = 0.496). CONCLUSIONS: Although short-term postoperative morbidity and mortality were found to be higher for patients undergoing the Commando procedure, AMC reconstruction may be equally durable in the long term.

Radial artery vs right internal mammary artery as a second conduit during coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of radial artery (RA) grafts during CABG to those of right internal mammary artery (RIMA) grafts. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-institution cohort study of isolated CABG with multiple grafts between 2010-2022. To balance graft cohorts, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using a 1:1 match ratio. Long-term postoperative survival was compared among RA and RIMA groups. Similarly, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were compared among both cohorts, with MACCE comprising death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and stroke. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed for mortality, while cumulative incidence estimation was utilized for MACCE. RESULTS: A total of 8,774 patients underwent CABG. Of those, 1,674 (19.1%) patients who underwent multiarterial CABG were included in this analysis. 326 (19.5%) patients received RA grafts and 1,348 (80.5%) received RIMA grafts. PSM yielded a cohort of 323 RA patients and 323 RIMA patients. After matching, groups were well-balanced across all baseline variables. No significant differences were observed in immediate postoperative complications or long-term survival, with 5-year survival estimates of 89.5% for the RA group vs 90.1% for the RIMA group. There was a nonsignificant trend toward a higher incidence of MACCE at 5 years in the RA group compared to the RIMA group (31.3% in the RA group vs 24.1% in the RIMA group), especially after 1-year follow-up (21.6% in the RA group vs 15.1% in the RIMA group). Specifically, for RA patients, there were higher rates of repeat revascularization in the 5-year postoperative period (14.7% in the RA group vs 5.3% in the RIMA group), particularly in the territory revascularized by the RA during the index operation (45.7% in the RA group vs 10.3% in the RIMA group). CONCLUSION: Overall, RA and RIMA secondary conduits for CABG were associated with comparable immediate postoperative complications, 5-year MACCE, and 5-year survival after PSM. RA grafting was associated with significantly higher rates of repeat coronary revascularization at 5 years, specifically in the territory revascularized by the RA during the index operation.

Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Structural valve degeneration is increasingly seen given the higher rates of bioprosthetic heart valve use for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) is an attractive alternate for patients who are otherwise at high risk for reoperative surgery. We compared patients who underwent VIV-TAVR and native valve TAVR through a retrospective analysis of our institutional transcatheter valve therapy (TVT) database from 2013 to 2022. Patients who underwent either a native valve TAVR or VIV-TAVR were included. VIV-TAVR was defined as TAVR in patients who underwent a previous surgical aortic valve replacement. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to obtain survival estimates. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for the multivariable analysis of mortality. A total of 3,532 patients underwent TAVR, of whom 198 (5.6%) underwent VIV-TAVR. Patients in the VIV-TAVR cohort were younger than patients who underwent native valve TAVR (79.5 vs 84 years, p <0.001), with comparable number of women and a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score (6.28 vs 4.46, p <0.001). The VIV-TAVR cohort had a higher incidence of major vascular complications (2.5% vs 0.8%, p = 0.008) but lower incidence of permanent pacemaker placement (2.5% vs 8.1%, p = 0.004). The incidence of stroke was comparable between the groups (VIV-TAVR 2.5% vs native TAVR 2.4%, p = 0.911). The 30-day readmission rates (VIV-TAVR 7.1% vs native TAVR 9%, p = 0.348), as well as in-hospital (VIV-TAVR 2% vs native TAVR 1.4%, p = 0.46), and overall (VIV-TAVR 26.3% vs native TAVR 30.8%, p = 0.18) mortality at a follow-up of 1.8 years (0.83 to 3.5) were comparable between the groups. The survival estimates were also comparable between the groups (log-rank p = 0.27). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, VIV-TAVR was associated with decreased hazards of death (hazard ratio 0.68 [0.5 to 0.9], p = 0.02). In conclusion, VIV-TAVR is a feasible and safe strategy for high-risk patients with bioprosthetic valve failure. There may be potentially higher short-term morbidity with VIV-TAVR, with no overt impact on survival.

Outcomes of Radial Artery Versus Saphenous Vein as A Second Conduit After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Despite the advantages of multiarterial grafting, saphenous vein (SV) configurations predominate in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In addition, the benefits of radial artery (RA) utilization in multivessel CABG remain unclear. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who received RA grafts during CABG with those of patients who received SV grafts. A retrospective, single-institution cohort study was performed in 8,774 adults who underwent isolated CABG surgery with multiple grafts between 2010 and 2022. To balance graft cohorts, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using a 1:2 (RA/SV) match ratio. Long-term postoperative survival was compared in RA and SV graft groups. Similarly, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates were compared in the cohorts, with MACCE comprising death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and stroke. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed for both mortality and MACCE. A total of 7,218 patients (82.3%) who underwent multivessel CABG were included in this analysis. Of these patients, 341 (4.7%) received RA grafts, and 6,877 (95.3%) received SV grafts secondary to left internal mammary artery use. PSM yielded a cohort of 335 patients with RA and 670 patients with SV. After matching, groups were well balanced across all baseline variables. No significant differences were observed in either immediate postoperative morbidities or long-term survival. However, Kaplan-Meier estimates of long-term postoperative freedom from MACCE were significantly greater in matched patients with SV (73.3%) than in those with RA (67.4%) (p = 0.044, cluster log-rank), with patients with SV also possessing significantly greater freedom from coronary revascularization and MI. In conclusion, RA and SV secondary conduits for CABG were associated with comparable immediate postoperative complications and long-term survival after PSM. SV grafting was associated with significantly decreased rates of postoperative MACCE, likely owing to lower rates of coronary revascularization and MI than in RA grafting.

Readmission-related outcomes of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients aged 65 or older with bicuspid aortic valve.

BACKGROUND: There continues to be debate regarding the superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV). We aimed to compare outcomes during readmissions in elderly patients with BAV who underwent SAVR or TAVR. METHODS: Patients 65 years or older with BAV who underwent TAVR or isolated SAVR were identified using the National Readmission Database from 2012 through 2018. We compared outcomes during readmissions within 90 days after discharge from the index surgery. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust the baseline differences. RESULTS: During the study period, 8555 and 1081 elderly patients with BAV underwent SAVR and TAVR, respectively. The number of patients who underwent TAVR went up by 179 % from 2012 to 2018. Propensity score matching yielded 573 patients in each group. A total of 111 (19.4 %) in the SAVR group and 125 (21.8 %) in the TAVR group were readmitted within 90 days after the index surgery (p = .31). The mortality during the readmissions within 90 days was equivalent between the two groups (0.9 % in the SAVR group vs. 3.2 % in the TAVR group, p = .22). However, the median hospital cost was approximately doubled in the TAVR group during the readmission (18,250 dollars vs. 9310 dollars in the SAVR group, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission within 90 days was common in both groups. While the mortality during the readmissions after the surgery was equivalent between the two groups, hospital cost was significantly more expensive in the TAVR group.

The impact of reoperative surgery on aortic root replacement in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Reoperative sternotomy is associated with poor outcomes after cardiac surgery. We aimed to investigate the impact of reoperative sternotomy on the outcomes after aortic root replacement. METHODS: All patients who underwent aortic root replacement from January 2011 to June 2020 were identified using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. We compared outcomes between patients who underwent first-time aortic root replacement with those with a history of sternotomy undergoing reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement using propensity score matching. Subgroup analysis was performed among the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group. RESULTS: A total of 56,447 patients underwent aortic root replacement. Among them, 14,935 (26.5%) underwent reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement. The annual incidence of reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement increased from 542 in 2011 to 2300 in 2019. Aneurysm and dissection were more frequently observed in the first-time aortic root replacement group, whereas infective endocarditis was more common in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group. Propensity score matching yielded 9568 pairs in each group. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group (215 vs 179 minutes, standardized mean difference = 0.43). Operative mortality was higher in the reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement group (10.8% vs 6.2%, standardized mean difference = 0.17). In the subgroup analysis, logistic regression demonstrated that individual patient repetition of (second or more resternotomy) surgery and annual institutional volume of aortic root replacement were independently associated with operative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement might have increased over time. Reoperative sternotomy is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality in aortic root replacement. Referral to high-volume aortic centers should be considered in patients undergoing reoperative sternotomy aortic root replacement.

Long-Term Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo-SAVR, we performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of nonrandomized studies published by August 2023. A total of 16 studies met our eligibility criteria, with a total of 4,373 patients (2,204 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 2,169 patients underwent redo-SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.73, p <0.001), with an HR reversal after this time point favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.33, p <0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (which represented 64.6% of the overall population), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.001], with a reversal after 6 months favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.93, p <0.001). The meta-regression analyses revealed a modulating effect of the following covariates: age, coronary artery disease, history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and implanted valves <25 mm. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with better survival immediately after the procedure than redo-SAVR; however, this primary advantage reverses over time, and redo-SAVR seems to offer better survival at a later stage. Because these results are pooled data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution, and randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Long-term sex-based outcomes after surgery for acute type A aortic dissection: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data.

BACKGROUND: The influence of sex on outcomes of surgery for acute type A aortic dissection remains incompletely characterized. We sought to evaluate post-procedural survival in the follow-up of females versus males. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review with meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data from studies published by June 2023 in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and CENTRAL/CCTR (Cochrane Controlled Trials Register). RESULTS: Twelve studies met our eligibility criteria, including 11,696 patients (3753 females; 7943 males). The mean age ranged from 41.2 to 72.6 years with low prevalence of bicuspid aortic valve (ranging from 0.0% to 12.0%) and connective tissue disorders (ranging from 0.8% to 7.3%). We found a considerable prevalence of coronary artery disease (ranging from 12.1% to 21.1%) and malperfusion (ranging from 20.0% to 46.3%). At 10 years, females undergoing surgery had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality compared with males (HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.14-1.38, P â€‹< â€‹0.001). CONCLUSION: In the follow-up of patients undergoing surgery for type A aortic dissection, females presented poorer overall survival in comparison with males.

Donation after circulatory death improves probability of heart transplantation in waitlisted candidates and results in post-transplant outcomes similar to those achieved with brain-dead donors.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitate the impact of heart donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor utilization on both waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in the United States. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to identify all adult waitlisted and transplanted candidates between October 18, 2018, and December 31, 2022. Waitlisted candidates were stratified according to whether they had been approved for donation after brain death (DBD) offers only or also approved for DCD offers. The cumulative incidence of transplantation was compared between the 2 cohorts. In a post-transplant analysis, 1-year post-transplant survival was compared between unmatched and propensity-score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. RESULTS: A total of 14,803 candidates were waitlisted, including 12,287 approved for DBD donors only and 2516 approved for DCD donors. Overall, DCD approval was associated with an increased sub-hazard ratio (HR) for transplantation and a lower sub-HR for delisting owing to death/deterioration after risk adjustment. In a subgroup analysis, candidates with blood type B and status 4 designation received the greatest benefit from DCD approval. A total of 12,238 recipients underwent transplantation, 11,636 with DBD hearts and 602 with DCD hearts. Median waitlist times were significantly shorter for status 3 and status 4 recipients receiving DCD hearts. One-year post-transplant survival was comparable between unmatched and propensity score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DCD hearts confers a higher probability of transplantation and a lower incidence of death/deterioration while on the waitlist, particularly among certain subpopulations such as status 4 candidates. Importantly, the use of DCD donors results in similar post-transplant survival as DBD donors.

Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement With Reimplantation vs Remodeling: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) with reimplantation vs remodeling in patients undergoing aortic root surgery remains a controversial subject. METHODS: This study was a pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived data from comparative studies published by December 31, 2022. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising 3044 patients (1991 in the reimplantation group and 2018 in the remodeling group). Patients who underwent VSARR with remodeling had a higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; 95% CI, 1.16-2.03; P = .002, log-rank test P < .001). Landmark analysis (with 4 years as the landmark time point) demonstrated that survival was lower in patients who underwent VSARR with remodeling (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.43-3.24; P < .001) in the first 4 years. Beyond the 4-year time point, no difference in survival was observed (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.50; P = .822). The risk for need of aortic valve and/or root reintervention was higher in patients undergoing VSARR with remodeling (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.07-2.07; P = .019, log-rank test P < .001). We did not find statistically significant coefficients for the covariates of age, female sex, connective tissue disorders, bicuspid aortic valve, aortic dissection, coronary bypass surgery, total arch replacement, or annular stabilization, which means that these covariates did not modulate the effects observed in our pooled analyses. CONCLUSIONS: VSARR with reimplantation is associated with better overall survival and lower risk of need for reintervention over time compared with VSARR with remodeling. Regarding overall survival, we observed a time-varying effect that favored the reimplantation technique up to 4 years of follow-up, but not beyond this time point.