Life Expectancy after Surgery for Ascending Aortic Aneurysm.

Introduction: The life expectancy of patients who undergo ascending aortic replacement is unknown. The life expectancy of a population depends on a collection of environmental and socio-economic factors of the territory where they reside. Our aim was to compare the life expectancy of patients undergoing surgery for ascending aortic aneurysm with that of the general population matching by age, sex, and territory. In addition, we aimed to know the late complications, causes of death and risk factors. Methods: All patients who underwent elective replacement of an ascending aortic aneurysm at our institution between 2000 and 2019 were included. The long-term survival of the sample was compared with that of the general population using data of the National Institute of Statistics. Results: For patients who survived the postoperative period, observed cumulative survival at three, five and eight years was 94.07% (95% CI 91.87%-95.70%), 89.96% (95% CI 86.92%-92.33%) and 82.72% (95% CI 77.68%-86.71%). Cumulative survival of the general population at three, five and eight years was 93.22%, 88.30%, and 80.27%. Cancer and cardiac failure were the main causes of death. Conclusions: Long-term survival of patients undergoing elective surgery for ascending aortic aneurysm who survive the postoperative period completely recover their life expectancy.

Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic valve prosthesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the use of surgically implanted biological aortic valves has been favored over mechanical prosthesis in patients between 50 and 70 years of age. However, outcomes on long-term survival are contradictory. The objective of this study was to determine if patients with mechanical valves have worse long-term survival than patients with biological prostheses. METHODS: We systematically searched published studies that: (1) were propensity score-matched or randomized controlled trials; (2) provided survival data with a minimum follow-up of 5 years; and (3) included patients older than 50 and younger than 70 years of age. Review articles, case reports, and editorials were excluded. We conducted a meta-analysis on the basis of 2 types of analysis. A reconstruction of the database of each study to simulate a patient-level meta-analysis was performed. Log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curves was recalculated. Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using a univariate Cox regression. In addition, we calculated a pooled HR using the fixed-effect inverse variance method. RESULTS: Four propensity score-matched studies and 1 randomized controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. Data of 4686 patients were analyzed. Survival rates for mechanical versus biological valves at 10 and 15 years of follow-up were: 76.78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.72%-78.69%) versus 74.09% (95% CI, 71.96%-76.08%), and 61.58% (95% CI, 58.29%-64.69%) versus 58.04% (95% CI, 54.57%-61.35%). Log rank test was statistically significant (P = .012) and the pooled HR was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.76-0.97; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with biological aortic valves, mechanical valves are associated with a long-term survival benefit for patients between 50 and 70 years.

Ascending aorta reinterventions.

Ascending aorta reinterventions present a challenge for surgeons as the technical difficulties of the procedure and the complex strategic approach can complicate successful treatment. These patients should be treated by surgical teams with ample experience in aortic diseases as they can be at high risk of mortality. The number of interventions on the ascending aorta and aortic arch and the use of biological conducts (lung autograft, homograft, etc.) have increased in recent years; therefore, the number of reinterventions can also be expected to increase, representing 10% of aortic surgical procedures. This article reviews the current status of ascending aorta reinterventions, analyzing the principal aspects of indication and surgical strategy, as well as the results published in the largest studies.

Bicuspid aortic valve syndrome: a multidisciplinary approach for a complex entity.

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) or bicuspid aortopathy is the most common congenital heart disease. It can be clinically silent and it is often identified as an incidental finding in otherwise healthy, asymptomatic patients. However, it can be dysfunctioning at birth, even requiring neonatal intervention, or, in time, lead to aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency, and endocarditis, and also be associated with aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection. Given its prevalence and significant complications, it is estimated that BAV is responsible for more deaths and morbidity than the combined effects of all the other congenital heart defects. Pathology of BAV is still not well known and many questions are unresolved. In this manuscript we review some aspects on bicuspid aortopathy, a heterogeneous and frequent disease in which like some authors have previously described, complex gene environment are present. Further investigations and, what is more, multidisciplinary teams are needed to improve our knowledge on this really fascinating disease.

Sparing aortic valve techniques.

Prosthetic valve implantation is the most widely used therapeutic option for aortic regurgitation (AR), but complications associated with prosthetic valves, with an incidence of 3-5% patient/year, and the need for anticoagulation in mechanical valves, force us to consider aortic valve repair as an alternative to the prosthetic implant, especially in young people with many potential years of life for these complications. Aortic valve repair techniques are not excessively complicated, but there is no standardization, so they are not reproducible in all medical centers. There are multiple repair procedures, but to study them we can divide, arbitrarily, into two large groups, techniques for treatment of aortic root dilatation (reimplantation and remodeling); and repair techniques without treatment of the aortic root, that act on annulus and on aortic leaflets. The two sets of techniques are often used together, but it is easier to understand them if this arbitrary division is made. Our goal is to publish our experience and knowledge of repair techniques to facilitate their learning by other professionals. In this article, we will focus on the procedures on the aortic annulus and leaflets, because they can be applied in patients without aortic root dilatation, but they are also complementary to the reimplantation and remodeling techniques. We will present the procedures describing them individually, with an explanation in text accompanied by three videos in which the application of each technique is visualized in several cases. The standardization of sparing aortic valve techniques is difficult, because each patient requires its individualized application, yet we have tried to illustrate reproducible procedures so that professionals have more tools to deal with aortic valve-preserving surgery.

Double pseudoaneurysm, recurrent subvalvular aortic membrane and small left ventricular outflow tract in the same patient: who dares?

Patients with pseudoaneurysm in the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) commonly present vague and nonspecific symptoms making the diagnosis difficult. We present the case of a 37-year-old patient with two subvalvular pseudoaneurysms in whom a combined resection surgery, enlargement of the LVOT, aortic valve replacement (AVR) and aortic root replacement were performed using the technique of Cabrol.

How to Perform a Late Surgical Explantation of a CoreValve Aortic Bioprothesis.

As transcatheter techniques expand to younger patients, cardiac surgeons need to know a safe surgical technique to extract these kinds of prostheses. We describe here an adequate surgical strategy for the explantation of a CoreValve prosthesis that was implanted more than 5 years previously.