Results of "elephant trunk" total aortic arch replacement using a multi-branched, collared graft prosthesis.

We report on our experience with a simplified elephant trunk (ET) procedure with a multi-branched prosthesis (Vascutek(®) Siena™ Collared Graft). It consists of a proximal portion (20 cm) with prefabricated side branches, a collar and a distal portion (30 cm). The collar, which can be trimmed into any desired diameter, constitutes the suture portion to the descending aorta. Radiopaque markers in the distal portion indicate the landing zone. Between January 2011 and June 2013, 20 consecutive patients (10 women; mean age, 66 ± 9.3 years) underwent ET procedure, including 6 re-do cases. Underlying aortic diseases were acute dissection (n = 6), chronic dissection (n = 4), aneurysm (n = 8) and PAU (n = 2). Mean preoperative diameter of the descending aorta was 49.1 ± 12.9 mm (range 74.7-29.7 mm). Concomitant procedures included ascending aortic replacement in 16 patients; root replacement in 2; AVR in 2, CABG in 3 and mitral repair in 1 patient. CPB time was 263 ± 94 min; mean duration of ACP was 65 ± 14 min. Two patients died on POD 8 and 78, respectively. Major adverse events included stroke (n = 1), resternotomy for bleeding (n = 2), renal failure requiring temporary dialysis (n = 1) and recurrent nerve paresis (n = 2). After a mean follow-up of 10 ± 8 months, all discharged patients were alive. Seven patients underwent stent-graft implantation of the descending aorta and one patient underwent open descending aortic replacement. The last generation of multi-branched arch prosthesis and especially the Vascutek(®) Siena™ Collared Graft make ET procedure a reasonable treatment option even in patients with acute aortic dissection.

Is Implantation of a Left Ventricular Assist Device in Patients With Critical or Impending Cardiogenic Shock an Absolute Contraindication? Looking Back at Our Past Experience Trying to Identify Contraindicative Risk Factors.

Poor survival has been demonstrated after ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation for Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1 and 2 patients compared with more stable levels. However, risk factors within this high-risk cohort have not been determined so far. The aim of the present study was to identify risk factors associated with this very high mortality rate. Between February 1993 and January 2013, 298 patients underwent VAD implantation in our institution. One hundred nine patients were in INTERMACS level 1 and 49 patients were in INTERMACS level 2 and were therefore defined as hemodynamically critical (overall 158 patients). Assist devices implanted were: HVAD HeartWare n = 18; Incor n = 11; VentrAssist n = 2; DeBakey n = 22; and pulsatile systems n = 105. After cumulative support duration of 815.35 months, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a survival of 63.9, 48.8, and 40.3% at 1, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Cox regression analyses identified age > 50 (P = 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 2.48), white blood cell count > 13.000/µL (P = 0.01, OR 2.06), preoperative renal replacement therapy (P = 0.001, OR 2.63), and postcardiotomy failure (P < 0.001, OR 2.79) as independent predictors of mortality. Of note, last generation VADs were not associated with significantly better 6-month survival (P = 0.59). Patients without the aforementioned risk factors could yield a survival of 79.2% at 6 months. This single-center experience shows that VAD implantation in hemodynamically unstable patients generally results in poor early outcome, even in third-generation pumps. However, avoiding the aforementioned risk factors could result in improved outcome.

Survival results after implantation of intrapericardial third-generation centrifugal assist device: an INTERMACS-matched comparison analysis.

Reports on third-generation centrifugal intrapericardial pumps (HeartWare International, Inc., Framingham, MA, USA) have shown better survival results than the previous-generation devices. However, outcomes depending on the preoperative level of stability can substantially differ, resulting in a limited analysis of potentialities and drawbacks of a given device. In the present study we sought to compare in our single-center experience the survival results of this third-generation device with previous left ventricular systems taking into account the different preoperative Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) levels. Between February 1993 and March 2012, 287 patients underwent assist device implantation in our university hospital (INTERMACS Level 1-2 = 158 patients; INTERMACS Level 3-4-5 = 129 patients). Assist devices implanted were: Group A (HVAD HeartWare, n = 52), group B (previous continuous-flow ventricular assist device [VAD], InCor [Berlin Heart, Berlin, Germany], n = 37; VentrAssist [VentraCor, Inc., Chatswood, NSW, Australia], n = 7; DeBakey [MicroMed Cardiovascular, Inc., Houston, TX, USA], n = 32), and group C (pulsatile systems, n = 159). After cumulative support duration of 54 436 days and a mean follow-up of 6.21 ± 7.46 months (range 0-45.21 months), log-rank analysis revealed a survival for group A of 82.0%, 70.4%, and 70.4%; for group B of 84.0%, 48.2%, 33.7%; and for group C of 71.6%, 46.1%, 33.8%, at 1, 12, and 24 months respectively, with a significantly (P = 0.013) better outcome for group A. When stratifying the survival on the basis of INTERMACS level, no significant survival improvement was observed among all patients who underwent VAD implantation in INTERMACS 1-2 (P = 0.47). However, among patients who underwent elective VAD implantation (INTERMACS 3-4-5), group A had a significantly better outcome (P = 0.005) compared with the other INTERMACS-matched groups (B,C) with a survival rate of 88.8% in group A versus 34.2% in group B and 45.6% in group C at 24 months, respectively. Elective HVAD system implantation shows improved survival benefit over the other INTERMACS-matched devices. Moreover, preoperative unstable hemodynamics resulted in a poor prognosis independently from the pump generation.

Biatrial recurrence of two independently growing cardiac myxoma in a patient with multiple tumor disease.

We report the case of a 56-year-old female patient with biatrial recurrence of cardiac myxoma and extensive comorbidities. In the literature, only few cases of biatrial myxoma can be found and they generally describe a single tumor reaching both atria. We found two independently growing cardiac myxomas of both atria.

Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after implantation of the Trifecta aortic bioprosthesis: an initial single-centre experience.

OBJECTIVES: The Trifecta valve (St. Jude Medical) was introduced into clinical practice as a tri-leaflet stented pericardial valve designed for supra-annular placement in the aortic position. The present study aims to evaluate the preliminary results with this new bioprosthesis. METHODS: Seventy patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Trifecta valve between August 2010 and December 2011. Thirty-three patients were male and 37 were female (52.9%). Mean age was 74.65 ± 7.63 (range 47-90 years). Prevalent cause of AVR was aortic stenosis in 64 (91.43%) patients. The mean preoperative pressure gradient was 50 ± 17 (range 20-84 mmHg), and the mean aortic valve area was 0.77 ± 0.33. Five (7.14%) patients were operated on due to aortic valve endocarditis. One patient was operated on due to isolated, severe aortic insufficiency. All patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV. Twenty-eight (40%) patients underwent concomitant procedures. RESULTS: Concomitant procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 25), mitral valve replacement (n = 1), ablation of atrial fibrillation (n = 1) and septal myomectomy (n = 1). There were no intraoperative deaths. The 30-day in-hospital mortality was 2.85% (2 of 70). One late death occurred during the in-hospital stay due to a multiorgan failure on postoperative day 60. There were 2 (2.85%) perioperative strokes. Mean pressure gradient decreased significantly from a preoperative value of 50 ± 17 mmHg to an intraoperative gradient of 9 ± 4 mmHg (Table 3). The mean gradients were 14, 11, 11, 8 and 6 mmHg for the 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 mm valve size, respectively. No prosthesis dislocation, endocarditis, valve thrombosis or relevant aortic regurgitation was observed at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The initial experience with the Trifecta valve bioprosthesis shows excellent outcomes with favourable early haemodynamics. Further studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm those preliminary results.