Application of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest in open left chest aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVES: Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) is often required for patients undergoing repair of descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm via left thoracotomy when proximal crossclamping is not feasible or when aneurysmal disease extends into the transverse aortic arch. Historical literature suggests higher complications rates due to the technical complexity of this approach; we examined outcomes with this approach at our center. METHODS: Between January 2008 and May 2018, 84 patients with DTAA or Crawford extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm underwent open repair. DHCA was employed in 46 of 84 (55%) patients, of which 33 (72%) required repair of distal arch and DTAA, and 13 (28%) required repair of the distal arch and extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm. Patients who underwent DHCA had more chronic dissections than those in the non-DHCA group (70% vs 34%; P ≤ .05). RESULTS: Major adverse outcomes for the DHCA group versus non-DHCA group were as follows: early mortality 3 out of 46 (7%) versus 4 out of 38 (11%) (P = .70), stroke 3 out of 46 (7%) versus 1 out of 38 (3%) (P = .62), permanent spinal cord deficit 2 out of 46 (4%) versus 3 out of 38 (8%) (P = .65), permanent renal failure necessitating dialysis 1 out of 46 (2%) versus 2 out of 38 (5%) (P = .59). Freedom from major adverse outcomes was 38 out of 46 (83%) versus 31 out of 38 (82%) for DHCA versus non-DHCA (P = 1). CONCLUSIONS: DHCA can be employed via left thoracotomy for combined arch and DTAA or extent I thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm open repair.

Florida sleeve is a safe and effective technique for valve salvage in acute stanford type A aortic dissection.

OBJECTIVE: Valve-sparing root replacement is commonly used for management of aortic root aneurysms in elective setting, but its technical complexity hinders its broader adoption for acute type-A aortic dissection (ATAAD). The Florida sleeve (FS) procedure is a simplified form of valve sparing aortic root reconstruction that does not require coronary reimplantation. Here, we present our outcomes of the FS repair in patients with dilated roots in the setting of an ATAAD. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 24 consecutive patients (2002-2018) treated with FS procedure for ATAAD. Demographic, operative, and postoperative outcomes were queried from our institutional database. Long term follow-up was obtained from clinic visits for local patients, and with telephone and telehealth measures otherwise. RESULTS: Mean age was 49 ± 14 years with 19 (79%) males. Marfan syndrome was present in 4 (16.7%) patients and 14 (58.3) had ≥2+ aortic insufficiency (AI). Nine (37.2%) had preoperative mal-perfusion or shock. The FS was combined with hemi-arch replacement in 15 (62.5%) patients and a zone-2 arch replacement in 9 (37.5%) patients. There were 2 (8.3%) early postoperative mortalities. Median follow-up period was 46 months (range, 0.3-146). The median survival of the entire cohort was 143.4 months. One patient (4.2%) required redo aortic valve replacement for unrelated aortic valve endocarditis at 30 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: FS is simplified and reproducible valve-sparing root repair. In appropriate patients, it can be applied safely in acute Stanford type-A aortic dissection with excellent early and long-term results.

Paravalvular leak closure with real time transesophageal echocardiography and fluoroscopy fusion.

Transcatheter technology has been increasingly used for paravalvular leak closure. We report the use of "Fusion Technology" (EchoNaviagator, Phillips, Tustin, CA) that combines real-time 2 and 3 dimensional trans-esophageal echocardiography with fluoroscopy imaging to facilitate paravalvular leak closure. This could help to identify the exact site, size, depth and shape of the paravalvular leak for proper positioning of the occluder device, which may result in saving time and effort.

Impact of Secondary Aortic Interventions After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair on Long-Term Survival.

BACKGROUND: The indications for and technology surrounding thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) have undergone significant evolution with increasing adoption. The purpose of this report is to evaluate pathology-specific incidence, timing, and types of secondary aortic intervention (SAI) after TEVAR and their impact on survival. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was made of all TEVAR and SAI performed from 2004 to 2018. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable logistic regression were used to estimate freedom from SAI and survival, and to identify SAI predictors. RESULTS: Of 1037 patients (mean age 65.4 ± 15.1 years), 155 (14.9%) underwent 212 SAIs (median 5 months; interquartile range, 1.5 to 18) with 37 (3.6%) requiring more than one SAI. The primary aortic pathology at index TEVAR significantly (P = .0001) affected the incidence of SAI: chronic dissection, 26.5%; postsurgical anastomotic pseudoaneurysm, 19.4%; degenerative aneurysm, 15.3%; and acute dissection, 11.2%. The most common indications for SAI were endoleaks (44.8%), disease progression or remote aortic procedure (23.1%), and persistent false lumen flow (9.9%). After exclusion of 30-day mortality events, patients who did not undergo a SAI had better survival compared with patients having SAI: no SAI 1 year 88.8% ± 1.1%, 5 years 75.2% ± 1.7%, and 10 years, 66.5% ± 2.3%; SAI 1 year 91.7% ± 2.4%, 5 years 61.9% ± 4.9%, and 10 years 33.5% ± 8.4% (log rank P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary aortic intervention after TEVAR is not uncommon, particularly among patients with chronic dissection pathology. Patients surviving their index hospitalization who undergo SAI have worse long-term survival. The varying incidence of SAI by indication identifies the need for pathology-specified patient selection, surveillance strategies after TEVAR, and better device design that addresses the limitations of TEVAR, particularly in dealing with dissection-related indications.

Neurologic Outcomes in Aortic Arch Repair With Frozen Elephant Trunk Versus 2-Stage Hybrid Repair.

BACKGROUND: We compared outcomes of single-stage hybrid aortic arch replacement (frozen elephant trunk) versus 2-stage hybrid repairs with primary open arch procedures followed by thoracic endovascular stenting. METHODS: This study reports a single-center retrospective review (2003 to 2016) of 118 patients undergoing hybrid repair of the aortic arch including 48 single-stage repairs versus 70 two-stage repairs. RESULTS: Single-stage repair was performed in 48 patients, including 31 (64.6%) men and 17 (35.4%) women with a mean age of 64 ± 11 years and a 2-stage procedure was performed in 70 patients, including 42 (60%) men and 28 (40%) women with a mean age of 65.67 ± 13.3 years (p = 0.46). More emergent single-stage procedures were performed in 23 of 48 (47.9%) patients versus 2-stage procedures in 8 of 70 (11.43%) patients (p < 0.001). Between the single- and 2-stage groups, there was no difference in stroke (6.25% [3 of 48] versus 14.28% [10 of 70]; p = 0.23), spinal cord ischemia (4.16% [2 of 48] versus 5.7% [4 of 70]; p = 1.0), or 30-day mortality rate: 8 of 48 (16.7%) patients versus a combined 30-day mortality rate of the 2-stage procedure of 14.8% (4 of 70 [5.7%] at the first stage and 5 of 55 [9.1%] at the second stage; p = 0.56), respectively. After exclusion of the 30-day mortality, midterm survival was 86% at 1 to 2 years for single-stage patients versus 80% at 1 year and 46% at 2 years for the 2-stage patients (p = 0.0019). CONCLUSIONS: Both single-stage and 2-stage hybrid arch replacements are effective approaches for treating complex aortic arch diseases. Early deaths and neurological outcomes in the single-stage group are comparable to those in the combined 2-stage group. Furthermore, in this series, patients who had a single-stage hybrid procedure had a higher survival rate at 2 years.

Outcomes of Antegrade Stent Graft Deployment During Hybrid Aortic Arch Repair.

BACKGROUND: Complex aortic arch disease can be a formidable challenge and is often treated with a two-stage elephant trunk technique. We examined our experience with hybrid arch repair with combined zone 0 stent graft deployment. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent type 2 hybrid arch replacement and zone 0 antegrade endovascular stent graft deployments at a single university center from June 2010 to August 2015. RESULTS: The review included 48 patients, 25 (52%) elective and 23 (48%) nonelective, with a mean ± SD age of 64 ± 11 years. Overall in-hospital mortality was 17% (8 of 48). Age exceeding 65 years (odds ratio, 9.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 36), preoperative international normalized ratio exceeding 1.3 (odds ratio, 14.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.1 to 95.87), and postoperative acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 5.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 29) were associated with in-hospital death. Postoperative stroke occurred in 3 patients (6%) and permanent paraplegia in 1 patient (2%). One (2%) patient underwent reoperation due to bleeding, and 6 patients (13%) experienced respiratory failure/reintubation. Acute kidney injury developed in 12 patients (25%), according to Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria, with 7 (14.6%) at stage 1 and 5 (10.4%) at stage 3. At the 1-year follow-up, type II endoleak developed in 2 of the 40 patients (5%), and 2 others required reoperation due to progression of chronic aortic dissection. Median follow-up time was 17 months (range, 1 to 63 months). The overall survival rate was 92% ± 0.04% at 6 months and 89% ± 0.05% at 1 and at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid repair of complex aortic arch pathology with antegrade stent graft deployment can be performed safely with high technical success while obviating the need for a second operation. Reasonable midterm survival can be anticipated; however, older age, preoperative coagulopathy, and postoperative acute kidney injury are factors associated with poor outcome.