Renal Dysfunction at Discharge and Long-Term Survival in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate the association between renal dysfunction at discharge and long-term survival in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients following surgery. METHODS: From 2000 to 2021, 784 patients underwent aortic repair for an ATAAD. Patients were stratified based on creatinine (Cr) level at discharge alive or dead: normal Cr (n = 582) and elevated Cr defined as >1.3 mg/dL for males and >1.0 mg/dL for females or on dialysis at discharge (n = 202). RESULTS: Preoperatively, both groups had similar rates of comorbidities except for the elevated-Cr group which had more diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic and acute renal insufficiency. Both groups had similar open ATAAD repair procedures. Postoperative outcomes in the elevated-Cr group were significantly worse, including six times higher operative mortality (20% versus 3.4%, P < 0.0001). The landmark long-term survival after discharge alive was significantly worse in the elevated-Cr group than the normal-Cr group (10-y survival: 48% versus 69%, P = 0.0009). The elevated Cr on dialysis at discharge group had significantly worse five-year survival (40%) than the elevated Cr not on dialysis at discharge group (80%, P = 0.02) and the normal-Cr group (87%, P < 0.0001). Additionally, the elevated Cr not on dialysis had a worse five-year survival than the normal-Cr group (80% versus 87%, P = 0.02). Elevated Cr at discharge on dialysis was a significant risk factor for late mortality (hazard ratio = 4.22, 95% confidence interval: [2.07, 8.61], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Renal dysfunction at discharge was associated with significantly decreased short-term and long-term survival following open ATAAD repair. Surgeons should aggressively prevent renal dysfunction, especially new-onset dialysis, at discharge as it is correlated with significantly worse short-term and long-term outcomes.

Acute type A intramural hematoma: The less-deadly acute aortic syndrome?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short- and midterm outcomes of surgically managed acute type A intramural hematoma (IMH) versus classic acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: From 1996 to February 2023, a total of 106 patients with acute type A IMH and 795 patients with classic ATAAD presented for open aortic repair at our institution. Data were obtained from the local Society of Thoracic Surgeons' Data Warehouse and medical chart review. RESULTS: Compared with the classic ATAAD group, the IMH group was older (65 vs 59 years, P < .001) and more likely to be female (45% vs 32%, P = .005), with fewer comorbidities such as severe aortic insufficiency (5.0% vs 25%, P < .001), acute stroke (2.8% vs 8.3%, P = .05), acute renal failure (5.7% vs 13%, P = .04), and malperfusion syndrome (8.5% vs 26%, P < .001) but more cardiac tamponade (18% vs 11%, P = .03). The IMH group had less aortic root replacement (15% vs 33%, P < .001), zone 2 arch replacements (9.4% vs 18%, P = .02), and shorter crossclamp times (120 minutes vs 150 minutes, P < .001). The operative mortality was significantly lower in the IMH group (0.9% vs 8.8%, P = .005) and a multivariable regression model showed IMH to be protective, odds ratio of 0.11, P = .03. The 10-year survival was similar between the 2 groups (65% vs 61%, P = .35). The hazard ratio of IMH for midterm mortality after surgery was 0.73, P = .12. CONCLUSIONS: Acute type A IMH could be treated with emergency open aortic repair with excellent short- and midterm outcomes.

Long-Term Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data.

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an alternative option to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but the long-term outcomes of HCR versus CABG remain unclear. We aimed to analyze the long-term outcomes after HCR and CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease using meta-analysis. A systemic literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was performed from inception to March 2023. Studies reporting Kaplan-Meier curves with follow-up ≥1 year were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and repeat revascularization. In total, 13 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 12 propensity-score matched observational studies) were analyzed. The mean follow-up period was 5.1 ± 3.1 years. HCR was associated with similar overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.36), significantly higher incidence of MACCEs (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.06), and repeat revascularization (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.64) compared with CABG. In phase-specific analysis, the mortality rate was similar, and the incidence of repeat revascularization was higher in HCR regardless of phases. The incidence of MACCEs was higher in HCR during the mid-term phase (1 to 5 years), but it was similar during the long-term phase (long-term: ≥5 years). In conclusion, despite the higher incidence of MACCEs and repeat revascularization compared with CABG, HCR offered a similar long-term survival. Even longer-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials with a large population are warranted to investigate the role of HCR for multivessel coronary artery disease.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of time-to-event long-term outcomes following the Ross procedure.

Background: The optimal aortic valve substitute for non-elderly adults remains controversial. Recently, considerable data on the Ross procedure have accumulated. This study aimed to analyze long-term outcomes following the Ross procedure from the current literature using a meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes. Methods: A literature search was performed with MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar through June 2022; studies reporting clinical outcomes of the Ross procedure beyond 20 years were included for analysis. The outcomes of interest were late survival and freedom from surgical or percutaneous reintervention of the autograft or right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT). Results: Six studies, including 4,910 patients (3,601 males), were identified and analyzed. Survival rate at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years was 99.9%±0.1%, 97.6%±0.5%, 94.3%±0.9%, and 87.4%±1.9%. Freedom from autograft reintervention at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years was 97.7%±0.5%, 95.3%±0.7%, 91.4%±1.2%, 84.8%±2.5%. Freedom from RVOT reintervention was 99.0%±0.3%, 99.0%±0.3%, 97.5%±0.7%, 93.3%±1.8%. Freedom from any valve reintervention (either autograft or RVOT) at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years was 95.8%±0.6%, 92.6%±0.9%, 88.5%±1.2%, 80.8%±2.5%. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrated that the Ross procedure was confirmed to provide excellent survival despite the need for reintervention of autograft or RVOT in approximately 20% of patients at 20 years.

Long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived data.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is as an alternative treatment to surgical AVR, but the long-term outcomes of TAVR remain unclear. AIMS: This study aimed to analyze long-term outcomes following TAVR using meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature search was performed with MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar through November 2022; studies reporting clinical outcomes of TAVR with follow-up periods of ≥8 years were included. The outcomes of interest were overall survival and/or freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD). Surgical risk was assessed with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score. A subgroup analysis was conducted for intermediate-/high-surgical risk patients only. RESULTS: Eleven studies including 5458 patients were identified and analyzed. The mean age was 82.0 ± 6.5 years, and mean STS PROM score ranged from 2.9 to 10.6%. Survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 47.7% ± 1.4% and 12.1 ± 2.0%. Five studies including 1509 patients were analyzed for SVD. Freedom from SVD at 5 and 8 years was 95.5 ± 0.7% and 85.1 ± 3.1%. Similar results for survival and SVD were noted in the subgroup analysis of intermediate-/high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Following TAVR, approximately 88% of patients died within 10 years, whereas 85% were free from SVD at 8 years. These date suggest that baseline patient demographic have the greatest impact on survival, and SVD does not seem to have a prognostic impact in this population. Further investigations on longer-term outcomes of younger and lower-risk patients are warranted.

First-in-Human Multicenter Experience of the Newest Generation Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Evolut FX TAVR System.

BACKGROUND: The latest-generation Evolut FX TAVR system (Medtronic) offers several potential design improvements over its predecessors, but early reported experience has been limited. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to report our multicenter, limited market release, first-in-human experience of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the Evolut FX system and compare it with a single-center PRO+ (Medtronic) experience. METHODS: From June 27 to September 16, 2022, 226 consecutive patients from 9 US centers underwent transfemoral TAVR with the Evolut FX system for native aortic stenosis (89.4%) or prosthetic valve degeneration (10.6%). Commissural alignment was defined as 0° to 30° between native and FX commissures. Patient, anatomical, and procedural characteristics were retrospectively reviewed, and 30-day clinical and echocardiographic outcomes per Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 definitions were reported. RESULTS: Of 226 patients, 34.1% were low risk, 4% had a bicuspid valve, and 11.5% had a horizontal root (≥60°). Direct Inline sheath (Medtronic) was used in 67.6% and Lunderquist stiff wire (Cook Medical) in 35.4% of cases. Optimal hat marker orientation during deployment was achieved in 98.4%, with commissural alignment in 96.5%. At 30 days, 14.3% mild, 0.9% moderate, and no severe paravalvular leak were observed. Compared with the Evolut PRO+ experience from 1 center, FX had a more symmetrical implantation with shallower depth at the left coronary cusp (P < 0.001), fewer device recaptures (26.1% vs 39.5%; P = 0.004), and improved commissural alignment (96.5% vs 80.2%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Evolut FX system demonstrated favorable 30-day outcomes with a significant improvement over PRO+ in achieving commissural alignment, fewer device recaptures, and more symmetrical implantation. These features may benefit younger patients undergoing TAVR with the supra-annular, self-expanding valve, where lifetime management would be important.

Progression of distal aorta after endovascular fenestration/stenting in acute type A aortic dissection with malperfusion syndrome.

Objective: The study objective was to evaluate the progression of dissected distal aorta in patients with acute type A aortic dissection with malperfusion syndrome treated with endovascular fenestration/stenting and delayed open aortic repair. Methods: From 1996 to 2021, 927 patients presented with acute type A aortic dissection. Of these, 534 had DeBakey I dissection with no malperfusion syndrome and underwent emergency open aortic repair (no malperfusion syndrome group), whereas 97 patients with malperfusion syndrome underwent fenestration/stenting and delayed open aortic repair (malperfusion syndrome group). Sixty-three patients with malperfusion syndrome treated with fenestration/stenting were excluded due to no open aortic repair, including death from organ failure (n = 31), death from aortic rupture (n = 16), and discharged alive (n = 16). Results: Compared with the no malperfusion syndrome group, the malperfusion syndrome group had more patients with acute renal failure (60% vs 4.3%, P < .001). Both groups had similar aortic root and arch procedures. Postoperatively, the malperfusion syndrome group had similar operative mortality (5.2% vs 7.9%, P = .35) and permanent dialysis (4.7% vs 2.9%, P = .50), but more new-onset dialysis (22% vs 7.7%, P < .001) and prolonged ventilation (72% vs 49%, P < .001). The growth rate of the aortic arch (0.38 vs 0.35 mm/year, P = .81) was similar between the malperfusion syndrome and no malperfusion syndrome groups. The descending thoracic aorta growth rate (1.03 vs 0.68 mm/year, P = .001) and abdominal aorta growth rate (0.76 vs 0.59 mm/year, P = .02) were significantly higher in the malperfusion syndrome group. The cumulative incidence of reoperation over 10 years (18% vs 18%, P = .81) and 15-year survival outcome (50% vs 48%, P = .43) were similar between the malperfusion syndrome and no malperfusion syndrome groups. Conclusions: Endovascular fenestration/stenting followed by delayed open aortic repair was a valid approach for patients with malperfusion syndrome.

Meta-analysis of phase-specific survival after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement from randomized control trials.

OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, although phase-specific survival and cause of death are implicated following these procedures. Herein, we conducted a phase-specific meta-analysis to compare outcomes after TAVR versus SAVR. METHODS: A systematic search of databases was performed from inception through December 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes of TAVR and SAVR. For each trial, the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of outcomes of interest was extracted for the following each specific phase: the very short-term (0-1 years after the procedure), short-term (1-2 years), and mid-term (2-5 years). Phase-specific HRs were separately pooled using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Our analysis included 8 randomized controlled trials, which enrolled a total of 8885 patients with a mean age of 79 years. The survival after TAVR compared with SAVR was greater in the very short-term periods (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98; P = .02) but similar in the short-term periods. In contrast, lower survival was observed in the TAVR group compared with the SAVR group in the mid-term periods (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29; P = .02). Similar temporal trends favoring SAVR in the mid-term were present for cardiovascular mortality and rehospitalization rates. In contrast, the rates of aortic valve reinterventions and permanent pacemaker implantations were initially greater in the TAVR group, although SAVR's superiority eventually disappeared in the mid-term. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrated phase-specific outcomes following TAVR and SAVR.

Reoperation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Insights from 10 years' experience.

OBJECTIVE: Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has demonstrated dramatic growth in the past decade. This study aims to investigate implications of post-TAVR reoperation from our 10-year experience. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2022, 66 post-TAVR patients underwent a reoperation, consisting of 42 (63.6%) patients with native TAVR and 24 (36.4%) patients with valve-in-valve TAVR (VIV-TAVR) after surgical aortic valve replacement. RESULTS: The aggregate proportion of patients belonging to the low-/intermediate-risk group at the time of TAVR exceeded that of the high-/extreme-risk cohort in 2021. The native TAVR group received a larger TAVR valve, whereas more frequent low-risk status at the time of TAVR than the VIV-TAVR group. Concurrent procedures were highly common during reoperation and isolated surgical aortic valve replacement represented only 18.2% of the entire cohort. The native TAVR group demonstrated significantly higher TAVR explant difficulty index score (2.0 vs 1.0 points; P < .001) and operative mortality (14.2% vs 0%; P = .079) compared with the VIV-TAVR group. The 8-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 1.9% and 14.1% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 8.0; 95% CI, 4.1-15.9; P < .001) in the native and VIV-TAVR group, respectively. Furthermore, cumulative incidence of valve reintervention, combining reoperations and redo TAVRs, was 3.3% and 19.0% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 6.2; 95% CI, 3.6-10.9; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Low-/intermediate-risk patients are emerging as the predominant group necessitating reoperations. Native TAVR was associated with lower postimplant reintervention rates, albeit with higher reoperative technical difficulty and mortality. Conversely, VIV-TAVR was associated with higher reintervention, but demonstrated lower technical difficulty and mortality for reoperation.

Feasibility of redo-TAVI in self-expanding Evolut valves: a CT analysis from the Evolut Low Risk Trial substudy.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in an existing transcatheter valve (redo-TAVI) pins the index valve leaflets in the open position (neoskirt), which can cause coronary flow compromise and limit access. Whether anatomy may preclude redo-TAVI in self-expanding Evolut valves is unknown. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the anatomical feasibility of redo-TAVI by simulating implantation of a balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (S3) within an Evolut or an Evolut within an Evolut. METHODS: A total of 204 post-TAVI computed tomography (CT) scans from the Evolut Low Risk CT substudy were analysed. Five redo-TAVI positions were evaluated: S3-in-Evolut inflow-to-inflow, S3 outflow at Evolut nodes 4, 5, and 6, and Evolut-in-Evolut inflow-to-inflow. Univariable modelling identified pre-TAVI clinical characteristics, CT anatomical parameters, and procedural variables associated with coronary flow compromise using the neoskirt height and post-TAVI aortic root dimensions. RESULTS: The risk of coronary flow compromise was lowest when the S3 outflow was at Evolut node 4 (20%) and highest when at Evolut node 6 (75%). The highest likelihood of preserving coronary accessibility occurred with the S3 outflow at Evolut node 4. Female sex and higher body mass index were associated with a higher risk of coronary flow compromise, as were a smaller annulus diameter, lower sinus of Valsalva height and width, shorter coronary height, smaller sinotubular junction diameter, and shallower Evolut implant depth. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of redo-TAVI after Evolut failure is multifactorial and relates to the native annular anatomy, as well as the implantation depth of the index and second bioprostheses. Placement of an S3 at a lower Evolut position may reduce the risk of coronary flow compromise while preserving coronary access. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT02701283.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement After Prior Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis treatment should consider risks and benefits for lifetime management. Although the feasibility of redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear, concerns are emerging regarding reoperation after TAVR. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to define comparative risk of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) after prior TAVR or SAVR. METHODS: Data on patients undergoing bioprosthetic SAVR after TAVR and/or SAVR were extracted from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database (2011-2021). Overall and isolated SAVR cohorts were analyzed. The primary outcome was operative mortality. Risk adjustment using hierarchical logistic regression as well as propensity score matching for isolated SAVR cases were performed. RESULTS: Of 31,106 SAVR patients, 1,126 had prior TAVR (TAVR-SAVR), 674 had prior SAVR and TAVR (SAVR-TAVR-SAVR), and 29,306 had prior SAVR (SAVR-SAVR). Yearly rates of TAVR-SAVR and SAVR-TAVR-SAVR increased over time, whereas SAVR-SAVR was stable. The TAVR-SAVR patients were older, with higher acuity, and with greater comorbidities than other cohorts. The unadjusted operative mortality was highest in the TAVR-SAVR group (17% vs 12% vs 9%, respectively; P < 0.001). Compared with SAVR-SAVR, risk-adjusted operative mortality was significantly higher for TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.53; P = 0.004), but not SAVR-TAVR-SAVR (OR: 1.02; P = 0.927). After propensity score matching, operative mortality of isolated SAVR was 1.74 times higher for TAVR-SAVR than SAVR-SAVR patients (P = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: The number of post-TAVR reoperations is increasing and represent a high-risk population. Yet even in isolated SAVR cases, SAVR after TAVR is independently associated with increased risk of mortality. Patients with life expectancy beyond a TAVR valve and unsuitable anatomy for redo-TAVR should consider a SAVR-first approach.

Explant vs Redo-TAVR After Transcatheter Valve Failure: Mid-Term Outcomes From the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR International Registry.

BACKGROUND: Valve reintervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) failure has not been studied in detail. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine outcomes of TAVR surgical explantation (TAVR-explant) vs redo-TAVR because they are largely unknown. METHODS: From May 2009 to February 2022, 396 patients in the international EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR registry underwent TAVR-explant (181, 46.4%) or redo-TAVR (215, 54.3%) for transcatheter heart valve (THV) failure during a separate admission from the initial TAVR. Outcomes were reported at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: The incidence of reintervention after THV failure was 0.59% with increasing volume during the study period. Median time from index-TAVR to reintervention was shorter in TAVR-explant vs redo-TAVR (17.6 months [IQR: 5.0-40.7 months] vs 45.7 months [IQR: 10.6-75.6 months]; P < 0.001], respectively. TAVR-explant had more prosthesis-patient mismatch (17.1% vs 0.5%; P < 0.001) as the indication for reintervention, whereas redo-TAVR had more structural valve degeneration (63.7% vs 51.9%; P = 0.023), with a similar incidence of ≥moderate paravalvular leak between groups (28.7% vs 32.8% in redo-TAVR; P = 0.44). There was a similar proportion of balloon-expandable THV failures (39.8% TAVR-explant vs 40.5% redo-TAVR; P = 0.92). Median follow-up was 11.3 (IQR: 1.6-27.1 months) after reintervention. Compared with redo-TAVR, TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days (13.6% vs 3.4%; P < 0.001) and 1 year (32.4% vs 15.4%; P = 0.001), with similar stroke rates between groups. On landmark analysis, mortality was similar between groups after 30 days (P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In this first report of the EXPLANTORREDO-TAVR global registry, TAVR-explant had a shorter median time to reintervention, with less structural valve degeneration, more prosthesis-patient mismatch, and similar paravalvular leak rates compared with redo-TAVR. TAVR-explant had higher mortality at 30 days and 1 year, but similar rates on landmark analysis after 30 days.

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis After Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is a devastating sequela of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, reoperation for post-TAVR PVE is not well described. We investigated the implications of surgically managed PVE after TAVR and SAVR. METHODS: Reoperations for active PVE after TAVR and SAVR from 2011 to 2021 were queried using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database. We identified 6257 patients, consisting of 374 TAVR (6%) and 5883 SAVR recipients (94%). RESULTS: Post-TAVR case volume increased from 1 in 2011 to 116 in 2020. Compared with SAVR, the TAVR group was associated with older age, more frequent preexisting pacemaker, and fewer aortic root abscesses. Intraoperatively, TAVR patients received less aortic root repair (24.9% vs 34.8%; P < .001) and had shorter cardiopulmonary bypass/aortic cross-clamp times. Among all comers, the operative mortality in patients with previous was 13.6% for TAVR vs 10.8% for SAVR (P = .088). After risk adjustment, previous TAVR itself was not associated with operative mortality (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.72-1.38). In contrast, among 154 post-TAVR and 2232 post-SAVR patients with STS-indexed procedures (SAVR ± coronary artery bypass grafting) with available STS predicted risk of mortality, the mortality was 14.3% and 7.9% (P = .005), with corresponding observed-to-expected mortality ratio of 2.2 and 1.3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic root repair was seen less frequently after TAVR than after SAVR. Furthermore, previous TAVR was not associated with increased operative mortality. In contrast, the post-TAVR setting was associated with higher mortality regarding isolated SAVR or SAVR plus coronary artery bypass grafting.

Natural history of moderate aortic stenosis and predictors for mortality: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although the current guidelines advocate imaging surveillance for moderate aortic stenosis (AS), recent studies suggest a worse prognosis associated with moderate AS than previously reported. Considering the recent paradigm shift in AS management, the risk/benefit profile of aortic valve replacement (AVR) for moderate AS needs to be re-evaluated. Herein, we conducted meta-analyses of natural history and risk predictors in patients with moderate AS. PubMed and EMBASE were searched through May 2022 to identify studies that investigated the natural history of patients with moderate AS. Meta-analyses with random effects model were conducted. Our analysis included 20 observational studies which enrolled a total of 11,114 patients with moderate AS. The rate of all-cause death was 11.0 [95 % confidence interval (CI), 7.6-14.4] per 100 patients per year. Surgical or transcatheter AVR occurred at a rate of 8.5 (95 % CI, 6.2-10.8; I2, 98.9 %) per 100 patients per year. Occurrence of AVR during follow-up [hazard ratio (HR) (95 % CI) = 0.56 (0.42-0.75), p < 0.001] and early AVR for moderate AS [HR (95 % CI) = 0.47 (0.25-0.90), p = 0.02] were associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, while left ventricular ejection fraction <50 % [HR (95 % CI) = 1.84 (1.33-2.57), p = 0.0003] and symptomatic status [HR (95 % CI) = 1.52 (1.32-1.75), p < 0.0001] were associated with increased all-cause mortality. Sex difference was not related to all-cause mortality. Our meta-analysis suggested that moderate AS was associated with high mortality, especially in low left ventricular systolic function or symptomatic patients. In addition, significant portion of the patients underwent AVR during follow-up.

Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement Technique: Valsalva Graft versus Two Straight Tubular Grafts.

Background: There are many variations in valve-sparing aortic root replacement techniques. Our aim is to determine the impact of the graft on mid-term outcomes: Valsalva graft vs. two straight tubular grafts. Methods: From 2004 to 2020, 332 patients underwent valve-sparing aortic root replacement with either a Valsalva graft (Valsalva group: n = 270) or two straight tubular grafts (two-graft group: n = 62). Data were obtained through chart review and the National Death Index. Primary outcomes were mid-term survival and freedom from reoperation. Results: The preoperative characteristics of the groups were similar, but the two-graft group had more type A dissections (32% vs. 19%) and emergent operations (26% vs. 15%) and was younger (45 vs. 50 years). Intraoperatively, the groups were similar, but the two-graft group had longer cross-clamp (245 vs. 215 minutes) and cardiopulmonary bypass times (284 vs. 255 minutes). Postoperative complications including reoperation for bleeding, stroke, pacemaker implantation, and renal failure were slightly more frequent in the Valsalva group, but the differences were not significant. Operative mortality was similar between the Valsalva and two-graft groups (0.7% vs. 0%). Five-year survival in the two-graft group was 100% compared to 96% in the Valsalva group (p=0.56). Five-year freedom from reoperation in the two-graft group was 100% compared to 93% in the Valsalva group (p=0.29). Conclusions: The Valsalva and two-graft techniques both have excellent short- and mid-term outcomes. The two-graft technique might have slightly better survival and freedom from reoperation, but a larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to determine if these advantages are significant.

Externally mounted versus internally mounted leaflet aortic bovine pericardial bioprosthesis: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies reported higher-than-expected rates of early structural valve degeneration (SVD) and/or reoperation of externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis compared with others. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of bioprostheses with externally versus internally mounted leaflet design in patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through November 2021 to identify comparative studies investigating outcomes following SAVR with either externally or internally mounted leaflet aortic bioprosthesis. Outcomes of interest were reoperation for SVD or any cause and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Our analysis included 15 observational studies that enrolled a total of 23,539 patients who underwent SAVR using externally mounted (n = 9338; 39.7%) or internally mounted leaflet (n = 14,201; 60.3%) bioprostheses. Externally mounted valves consisted of the Trifecta (Abbott, St Paul, MN) (n = 6146) and the Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, UK) (n = 3192), and all internally mounted valves were the Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Externally mounted valves compared with the Perimount were associated with higher reoperation rates for SVD [hazard ratio (HR) 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.67-4.72; P < 0.001] and any cause (HR 9.36, 95% CI 3.70-23.67; P < 0.001). Furthermore, externally mounted valves demonstrated higher all-cause mortalities (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13-1.56; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study summarizing updated evidence revealed higher reoperation rates and all-cause mortalities in patients with externally mounted leaflet aortic bioprostheses compared with those with internally mounted design. Choosing the right SAVR valve type is critical part of lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

Distal Aortic Progression After Hemiarch, Zones 1-3 Arch Replacement in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: There is debate regarding aortic arch repair extent for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients. METHODS: From 1996 to 2021, 756 ATAAD patients underwent open arch replacement. The cohort was divided into hemiarch (n = 481), zone 1 (n = 65), zone 2 (n = 148), and zone 3 (n = 62) arch replacement groups. Cross-group comparison of aortic growth was modeled using data from interval postoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the distal aorta. RESULTS: Demographics were not significantly different except the hemiarch group had more coronary artery disease and less stroke. Intraoperatively, zones 1, 2, and 3 had greater cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermic circulatory arrest times and required more intraoperative blood transfusion than the hemiarch group. Perioperative outcomes were similar among groups except zone 3 had more reoperation for bleeding. Ten-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was hemiarch, 16.7%; zone 1, 16.3%; zone 2, 21.5%; and zone 3, 17.6% (P = .70). Ten-year survival was similar: hemiarch, 66%; zone 1, 60.3%; zone 2, 68.0%); and zone 3 66.1% (P = .20). Aortic arch, descending aorta, and abdominal aorta growth rates were not significantly different among groups over 10 years. In the whole cohort, the growth rate over time for aortic arch was 0.38 mm per year (P < .001), descending aorta 0.84 mm per year (P < .001), and abdominal aorta 0.69 mm per year (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in long-term survival, distal aorta growth, or reoperation rate for distal aortic aneurysm after hemiarch or zones 1, 2, or 3 arch replacement. Patient-specific arch replacement strategies may be used rather than defaulting to aggressive arch replacement for all ATAAD patients.