Moderately dilated ascending aorta-The right wrap?

External reinforcement of the dilated or thin-walled aorta has been tried for nearly half a century. A range of materials has been used as external support. This commentary assesses the evidence that exists regarding the efficacy of wrapping the aorta as well as compares the different options available with a particular focus on the usage of the autologous pericardium.

The impact of patient-prosthesis mismatch on early and long-term survival after aortic replacement with the Edwards Perimount valve: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the impact of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) related to the Edwards Lifesciences Perimount (EP) bioprosthesis in the aortic position on early in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival. METHODS: A total of 5964 consecutive patients underwent aortic valve replacement at the Bristol Heart Institute between 1998 and 2014, 2667 representing the cohort of this study received EP. PPM was defined severe as EOAi < 0.65 cm2 /m2 . To minimize bias, propensity score matching was conducted and two groups A and B (without and with severe PPM) of 320 patients with similar preoperative characteristics were matched. We assessed early in-hospital outcomes including CVA, re-exploration for bleeding, low cardiac output, wound infection, acute renal injury, length of hospital stay, and long-term survival for both groups in unmatched and matched populations. RESULTS: In the unmatched analysis, 18.3% of patients had severe PPM. Severe PPM was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality (4.5% vs. 2.9%, respectively, p = .09) or any other early adverse outcomes except increased length of hospital stay (10.57 ± 8.2 vs. 11.7 ± 9.4, respectively, p = .01). Long-term survival differed significantly between groups at 2 and 8 years (91.8% vs. 91.4% and 60.5% vs. 55.7%, respectively, p = .02). Matched analysis showed no differences between the groups in early health outcomes and overall survival at 2 and 8 years was also similar (89.7% vs. 91% and 57.3% vs. 58%, group A vs. B, respectively p = .9). CONCLUSION: Presence of PPM does not seem to affect early in-hospital outcomes or late survival when using EP in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.

Adult coronary artery bypass grafting by congenital surgeons-a propensity matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Surgical myocardial revascularization will be increasingly needed in adult patients with congenital heart disease. We investigated the results of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed on adults by congenital cardiac surgeons at our institution. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-centre study. Adults undergoing isolated or combined CABG from 2004 to 2017 were included. Early and late outcomes were analyzed for the whole cohort. Furthermore, a propensity matched analysis was conducted comparing the results of isolated CABG between congenital and adult surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 514 and 113 patients had isolated and combined CABG for acquired heart disease, respectively. A total of 33 patients had myocardial revascularization at the time of surgery for congenital heart disease. Overall early mortality was 1.2%, the rate of re-exploration for bleeding was 4.5%, and an internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft was used in 85.6% patients. One-year survival was 97.5% (96.2-98.8%), and 5-year survival was 88.0% (84.8-91.3%). After propensity matching (468 pairs), early mortality (0.6% vs 1.2%, P = 0.51), re-exploration for bleeding (3.6% vs 3.0%, P = 0.72), use of internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft (92.7% vs 91.9%, P = 0.70) and late survival did not differ between congenital surgeons and adult surgeons, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical myocardial revascularization can be required for adult congenital patients in a broad spectrum of clinical situations. Despite lower volumes, congenital cardiac surgeons perform CABG safely and with results that are comparable to those of the adult surgeons at our centre.

Disparity in clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery between private and public (NHS) payers in England.

BACKGROUND: There is little known about how payer status impacts clinical outcomes in a universal single-payer system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between payer status (private or public) and clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery from NHS providers in England. METHODS: The National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit (NACSA) registry was interrogated for patients who underwent adult cardiac surgery in England from 2009 to 2018. Information on socioeconomic status were provided by linkage with the Iteration of the English Indices of Deprivation (IoD). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included incidence of in-hospital postoperative cerebrovascular accident (CVA), renal dialysis, sternal wound infection, and re-exploration. To assess whether payer status was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, binomial generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were fitted along with 17 items forming the EuroSCORE and the IoD domains. FINDINGS: The final sample consisted of 280,209 patients who underwent surgery in 31 NHS hospitals in England from 2009 to 2018. Of them, 5,967 (2.1%) and 274,242 (97.9%) were private and NHS payers respectively. Private payer status was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.79; 95%CI 0.65 - 0.97;P = 0.026), CVA (OR 0.77; 95%CI 0.60 - 0.99; P = 0.039), need for re-exploration (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.72 - 0.97; P = 0.017) and with non-significant lower risk of dialysis (OR 0.84; 95%CI 0.69 - 1.02; P = 0.074). Private payer status was found to be independently associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality in the elective subgroup (OR 0.76; 95%CI 0.61 - 0.96; P = 0.020) but not in the non-elective subgroup (OR 1.01; 95%CI 0.64 - 1.58; P = 0.976). INTERPRETATION: In conclusion, using a national database, we have found evidence of significant beneficial effect of payer status on hospital outcomes following cardiac surgery in favour of private payers regardless their socioeconomic factors.

"Turn downs" in aortic emergencies: Reassurance or uncertainty?

"Turn-down" rate has been reported to have a significant influence on outcomes, and being turned down for an operation is associated with significant short-term mortality risk. A study examining the impact of the pandemic on the "turn-down" rates of acute aortic syndromes in the United Kingdom reported an overall "turn-down" rate of  7.3% in the early part of the pandemic. This review examines the significance of "turn-downs" in this setting and scrutinizes the adequacy of reporting this complex variable.

Effectiveness and Safety of Aprotinin Use in Thoracic Aortic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of aprotinin use in adult patients undergoing thoracic aortic surgery. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective study. SETTING: All cases performed at a single university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Between January 2004 and December 2014, 846 adult patients underwent thoracic aortic surgery. Due to missing or duplicated data on primary outcomes, 314 patients were excluded. The final sample of 532 patients underwent surgery on the thoracic aorta. INTERVENTIONS: The patients were divided in the following 2 groups: 107 patients (20.1%) received aprotinin during the surgery, which represented the study group, whereas the remaining 425 patients (79.9%) underwent surgery without the use of aprotinin. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: To adjust for patient selection and preoperative characteristics, a propensity score-matched analysis was conducted. Mean total blood loss at 12 hours after surgery was similar between the 2 groups. The blood product transfusion rates did not differ in the 2 groups, except for the rate of fresh frozen plasma transfusion being significantly higher in the aprotinin group. Re-exploration for bleeding and the incidence of a major postoperative bleeding event were similar between the groups. Rates of in-hospital mortality, renal failure, and cerebrovascular accidents did not show any statistically significant difference. Aprotinin did not represent a risk factor for mortality over the long term (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.62-2.08, p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The use of aprotinin demonstrated a limited effect in reducing postoperative bleeding and prevention of major bleeding events. Aprotinin did not adversely affect early outcomes and long-term survival.

Improving outcomes in acute aortic dissection.

Aortic dissection remains a serious cardiovascular emergency with significant early and late mortality and morbidity. Improving outcomes is directly linked to early clinical diagnosis, swift confirmation by appropriate imaging and management by dedicated teams with high levels of expertise in a complex clinical condition.

Malperfusion rather than merely timing of operative repair determines early and late outcome in type A aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Although generally better outcomes are reported in patients undergoing early repair of type A aortic dissection, patients who survive the first 48 hours self-select themselves toward better outcomes as well. Malperfusion is another important determinant of outcome in these patients. The aim of this study was to examine the hypothesis that malperfusion, not the timing of operation, is the dominant determinant of outcome in repair of type A aortic dissection. METHODS: A total of 205 patients underwent operative repair of acute type A aortic dissection in our hospital over a 17-year period. The time from symptom onset to surgical repair was reliably established in 152 cases. Patients were grouped into those who had undergone surgery within 12 hours of symptom onset (early surgery group; n = 72 [47%]) and those who underwent surgery beyond 12 hours of symptom onset (late surgery group; n = 80 [53%]). RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was similar in the 2 groups (early surgery: 19.4% [95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0%-30.6%]; late surgery: 13.8% [95% CI, 7.9%-23.5%]; P = .08). The log-rank test for equality of survivor functions was 0.08. However, malperfusion with hemodynamic compromise was more common in the early surgery group (47% vs 31%; P = .029) and was identified as an independent predictor of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.21-5.79; P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Malperfusion at presentation rather than timing of intervention is the major risk factor of death both in the hospital and at long-term follow-up in patients undergoing surgery for type A aortic dissection.

National Registry Data and Record Linkage to Inform Postmarket Surveillance of Prosthetic Aortic Valve Models Over 15 Years.

Importance: Postmarket evidence generation for medical devices is important yet limited for prosthetic aortic valve devices in the United Kingdom. Objective: To identify prosthetic aortic valve models that display unexpected patterns of mortality or reintervention using routinely collected national registry data and record linkage. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study used data from all National Health Service and private hospitals in England and Wales that submit data to the National Adult Cardiac Surgery Audit (NACSA). All patients undergoing first-time elective and urgent aortic valve replacement surgery (with or without coronary artery bypass grafting) with a biological (n = 15 series) or mechanical (n = 10 series) prosthetic valve from 5 primary suppliers, and satisfying prespecified data quality criteria (n = 43 782 biological; n = 11 084 mechanical) between 1998 and 2013 were included. Valves were classified into series of related models. Outcome tracking was performed using multifaceted record linkage. The median follow-up was 4.1 years (maximum, 15.3 years). Cox proportional hazards regression with random effects (frailty models) were used to model valve effects on the outcomes, with and without adjustment for preoperative and intraoperative covariates. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to all-cause mortality or aortic valve reintervention (surgical or transcatheter). There were 13 104 deaths and 723 reinterventions during follow-up. Results: Of 79 345 isolated aortic valve replacement procedures with or without coronary artery bypass grafting, 54 866 were analyzed. Biological valve implantation rates increased from 59% in 1998 and 1999 to 86% in 2012 and 2013. Two series of valves associated with significantly increased hazard of death or reintervention were identified (first series: frailty, 1.18; 95% prediction interval [PI], 1.06-1.32 and second series: frailty, 1.19; 95% PI, 1.09-1.31). These results were robust to covariate adjustment and sensitivity analyses. There were 3 prosthetic valves with a significant reduction in hazard (valve 1: frailty, 0.88; 95% PI, 0.80-0.96; valve 2: frailty, 0.88; 95% PI, 0.80-0.96; and valve 3: frailty, 0.88; 95% PI, 0.78-0.98). Conclusions and Relevance: Meaningful evidence from the analysis of routinely collected registry data can inform postmarket surveillance of medical devices. Although the findings are associated with a number of caveats, 2 specific biological aortic valve series identified in this study may warrant further investigation.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk patients: a review.

The role of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) grafting in high risk patients remains controversial. While there have been studies showing the potential benefits of it, there is still a lot to be learned from the application of this technique in this sub-group of patients. The results of the different trials and papers that we reviewed seem to indicate a benefit in the OPCAB group. Despite of the fact that trials were significantly different in methodology, especially when choosing the risk score stratification tool or the cut-off to define high risk the literature seems to suggest a benefit from the use of OPCAB surgery. Here, we present a review which focussed on early and late outcome in high risk patients undergoing on- and off-pump coronary revascularization.

Impact of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on survival: current best available evidence.

The superiority of either off-pump (OPCAB) or on-pump (ONCAB) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains unclear despite a large body of literature evidence comparing the two approaches. The potential advantages of avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), minimizing aortic manipulation and maintaining pulsatile flow may be associated with reduced inflammatory responses and embolic events. Numerous studies compared OPCAB with ONCAB and the cumulative data have been presented in meta-analyses of both randomized and observational studies. Although there is an abundance of data with respect to the operative morbidity and mortality and the short-term outcomes associated with these two strategies, not much is known about how they impact long-term survival and recurrence of myocardial ischaemic events. Recent studies and meta-analyses have focused on long-term survival and major secondary outcomes in OPCAB vs. ONCAB within the general population. Significant limitations in methodology, however, have raised concerns about the strength of several randomized trials with restrictive inclusion criteria that reduced the populations to those at low risk only, thus creating result bias. Here, we present a review of the best available evidence with a focus on long-term outcomes.

Postoperative acute kidney injury defined by RIFLE criteria predicts early health outcome and long-term survival in patients undergoing redo coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) on early health outcome and on long-term survival in patients undergoing redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: We performed a Cox analysis with 398 consecutive patients undergoing redo CABG over a median follow-up of 7 years (interquartile range, 4-12.2 years). Renal function was assessed using baseline and peak postoperative levels of serum creatinine. AKI was defined according to the risk, injury, failure, loss, and end-stage (RIFLE) criteria. Health outcome measures included the rate of in-hospital AKI and all-cause 30-day and long-term mortality, using data from the United Kingdom's Office of National Statistics. Propensity score matching, as well as logistic regression analyses, were used. The impact of postoperative AKI at different time points was related to survival. RESULTS: In patients with redo CABG, the occurrence of postoperative AKI was associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.3 to 10.5; P < .01], high Euroscore (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.52; P < .01), use of IABP (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.24-20.3; P < .01), and reduced long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.42; 95% CI, 1.63-3.6; P = .01). Overall survival at 5 and 10 years was lower in AKI patients with AKI compared with those without AKI (64% vs 85% at 5 years; 51% vs 68% at 10 years). On 1:1 propensity score matching analysis, postoperative AKI was independently associated with reduced long term survival (HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.15-6.7). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing redo CABG, the occurrence of postoperative AKI is associated with increased 30-day mortality and major complications and with reduced long-term survival.

Propofol cardioplegia: A single-center, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest is an effective treatment for coronary artery and aortic valve diseases. However, the myocardium sustains reperfusion injury after ischemic cardioplegic arrest. Our objective was to assess the benefits of supplementing cardioplegia solution with the general anesthetic propofol in patients undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: A single-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial was carried out to compare cardioplegia solution supplemented with propofol (concentration 6 µg/mL) versus intralipid (placebo). The primary outcome was cardiac troponin T release over the first 48 hours after surgery. RESULTS: We recruited 101 participants (51 in the propofol group, 50 in the intralipid group); 61 underwent CABG and 40 underwent AVR. All participants were followed to 3 months. Cardiac troponin T release was on average 15% lower with propofol supplementation (geometric mean ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.01; P = .051). There were no differences for CABG participants but propofol-supplemented participants undergoing AVR had poorer postoperative renal function (geometric mean ratio, 1.071; 95% CI, 1.019-1.125; P = .007), with a trend toward longer intensive care stay (median, 89.5 vs 47.0 hours; hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.31-1.09; P = .09) and fewer with perfect health (based on the EQ-5D health utility index) at 3 months (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.06-1.05; P = .058) compared with the intralipid group. Safety profiles were similar. There were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol supplementation in cardioplegia appears to be cardioprotective. Its influence on early clinical outcomes may differ between CABG and AVR surgery. A larger, multicenter study is needed to confirm or refute these suggestions.

Investigating the effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on biomarkers of stress and injury-related signalling in patients having isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement using cardiopulmonary bypass: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ischaemia-reperfusion injury occurs during heart surgery that uses cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cardioplegic arrest. It is hypothesised that remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) protects the heart against such injury. Despite the numerous studies investigating the protective effects of RIPC, there is still uncertainty about the interpretation of the findings as well as conflicting results between studies. The objective of this trial is to investigate the cardioprotective effect of RIPC in patients having coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or aortic valve replacement surgery. This will be achieved by estimating the effect of the intervention in the two groups of pathologies and by investigating the signalling mechanisms that may underpin the cardioprotective effect. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-centre randomised controlled trial will be used to investigate the effects of RIPC in two pathologies: patients having isolated CABG and those having aortic valve replacement surgery (AVR) with CPB. Participants will be randomised to RIPC or control (sham RIPC), stratified by surgical stratum. The intervention will be delivered by a research nurse. Data will be collected by a research nurse blinded to the intervention. The patient and the theatre staff are also blinded to the allocation. Markers of myocardial injury and inflammation will be measured in myocardial biopsies and in blood samples at different times. DISCUSSION: This trial is designed to investigate whether RIPC will reduce myocardial injury and inflammation following heart surgery and whether there is a difference in effect between participants having CABG or AVR. This trial is a unique opportunity to study the mechanisms associated with RIPC using human myocardial tissue and blood, and to relate these to the extent of myocardial injury/protection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33084113 (25 March 2013).

A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38,040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years.

OBJECTIVES: Biological valves are the most commonly implanted prostheses for aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery in the UK. The aim of this study was to compare performance of porcine and bovine pericardial valves implanted in AVR surgery with respect to survival and reintervention-free survival in a retrospective observational study. METHODS: Prospectively collected clinical data for all first-time elective and urgent AVRs with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery performed in England and Wales between April 2003 and March 2013 were extracted from the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research database. Patient life status was tracked from the Office for National Statistics. Time-to-event analyses were performed using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards regression modelling with random effects/grouped frailty for responsible cardiac surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 38,040 patients were included (64.9% bovine pericardial; 35.1% porcine). Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The median follow-up was 3.6 years. There was no statistically significant difference in survival (P = 0.767) (the 10-year survival rates were 49.0 and 50.3% in the bovine pericardial and porcine groups, respectively) or reintervention-free survival. The adjusted hazard ratio for porcine valves was 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.93-1.03). Sensitivity analysis in small valve sizes showed no difference in reintervention-free survival. After adjustment, there was some evidence of a protective effect for porcine valves in relatively younger patients (P = 0.075). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in reintervention-free survival between bovine pericardial and porcine valves used in first-time AVR ± CABG up to a maximum of 10 years.

Iatrogenic intraoperative type A aortic dissection following cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: An increase in the incidence of intraoperative aortic dissection has been reported recently, attributed to the increasingly elderly patient population undergoing cardiac surgery and more off-pump coronary artery bypass. We performed this study to examine current trends, identify risk factors for iatrogenic dissection, and compare iatrogenic intraoperative aortic dissection with spontaneous aortic dissection. METHODS: The 15,144 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac surgery from April 1999 to April 2011 were studied retrospectively on data collected prospectively. RESULTS: Iatrogenic type A aortic dissection following cardiac surgery was diagnosed intraoperatively in 7 (0.04%) patients. Of the 4784 patients who had off-pump coronary artery bypass, only 2 (0.04%) developed iatrogenic intraoperative aortic dissection. Patients in the iatrogenic aortic dissection group were older by a decade (median age 72 vs. 62 years, p = 0.01). The cannulation site in conventional coronary artery bypass grafting and injury by the side-biting clamp in off-pump coronary artery bypass were the most common causes of dissection. Atheromatous disease was identified at the site of cannulation in 5 (71.4%) of the 7 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative aortic dissection remains a rare and unpredictable complication of cardiac surgery, with worse outcomes than spontaneous aortic dissection. Increased age and atheromatous disease at the site of cannulation are significant risk factors for iatrogenic dissection. In this series, off-pump coronary artery bypass did not appear to be a risk factor for iatrogenic aortic dissection.

The effects of propofol cardioplegia on blood and myocardial biomarkers of stress and injury in patients with isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement using cardiopulmonary bypass: protocol for a single-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite improved myocardial protection strategies, cardioplegic arrest and ischemia still result in reperfusion injury. We have previously published a study describing the effects of propofol (an anesthetic agent commonly used in cardiac surgery) on metabolic stress, cardiac function, and injury in a clinically relevant animal model. We concluded that cardioplegia supplementation with propofol at a concentration relevant to the human clinical setting resulted in improved hemodynamic function, reduced oxidative stress, and reduced reperfusion injury when compared to standard cardioplegia. OBJECTIVE: The Propofol cardioplegia for Myocardial Protection Trial (ProMPT) aims to translate the successful animal intervention to the human clinical setting. We aim to test the hypothesis that supplementation of the cardioplegic solution with propofol will be cardioprotective for patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: The trial is a single-center, placebo-controlled, randomized trial with blinding of participants, health care staff, and the research team. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years undergoing nonemergency isolated coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass at the Bristol Heart Institute are being invited to participate. Participants are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either cardioplegia supplementation with propofol (intervention) or cardioplegia supplementation with intralipid (placebo) using a secure, concealed, Internet-based randomization system. Randomization is stratified by operation type and minimized by diabetes mellitus status. Biomarkers of cardiac injury and metabolism are being assessed to investigate any cardioprotection conferred. The primary outcome is myocardial injury, studied by measuring myocardial troponin T. The trial is designed to test hypotheses about the superiority of the intervention within each surgical stratum. The sample size of 96 participants has been chosen to achieve 80% power to detect standardized differences of 0.5 at a significance level of 5% (2-tailed) assuming equal numbers in each surgical stratum. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients have been successfully recruited over a 2-year period. Results are to be published in late 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Designing a practicable method for delivering a potentially protective dose of propofol to the heart during cardiac surgery was challenging. If our approach confirms the potential of propofol to reduce damage during cardiac surgery, we plan to design a larger multicenter trial to detect differences in clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 84968882; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN84968882/ProMPT (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6Qi8A51BS).

Implications of using different methods to characterise anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses.

OBJECTIVE: Characterisation of anticoagulant control is fundamental to investigations of its association with clinical outcome. Anticoagulant control depends on several factors. This paper aims to illustrate the implications of different methods for measuring and analysing anticoagulant control in patients with second generation mechanical heart valve prostheses. METHODS: International normalised ratio (INR) data collected during the 10-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial were analysed. We considered the influence of: 3 different target INR ranges; anticoagulant control expressed as the proportion of INR readings (PoR) vs. anticoagulant control follow-up time (PoT); 3 ways of describing the profile of anticoagulant control over time. RESULTS: Different target INR ranges dramatically influenced derived measures of anticoagulant control; the PoT within the target range varied from 88% for the widest to 28% for narrowest range. Overall distributions of PoR and PoT observations were similar but differed by up to ± 20% for individuals; PoT exceeded PoR when control was good but was less than PoR when control was poor. Classifying PoT outside the target range showed that widely varying combinations of PoT too high and too low are possible across individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers' choices about methods for measuring and quantifying anticoagulant control markedly influence the values derived from INR readings. The use of different methods across studies makes it difficult or impossible to compare findings and to establish an evidence base for clinical practice. Methods for quantifying anticoagulant control should be standardised.

Thoracic endovascular repair versus open surgical repair - which is the more cost-effective intervention for descending thoracic aortic pathologies?

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment is increasingly used to treat complicated aortic pathology. The aim of the study was to assess if compared with operative repair, thoracic endovascular repair of aorta (TEVAR) was associated with a cost benefit in management of diseases affecting the descending thoracic aorta. We also compared early and mid-term outcomes between the two groups. METHODS: Clinical characteristics, outcomes and hospitalisation costs of 84 consecutive patients undergoing intervention for conditions affecting the descending thoracic aorta were reviewed retrospectively. Hospitalisation costs were calculated from National Health Service (NHS) reference costs for staff time, consumables, transfusion and length of stay. RESULTS: Apart from a higher frequency of acute type B dissection (16/45 vs 5/39, p = 0.047) in the TEVAR group, the baseline characteristics were similar. TEVAR was associated with significant reductions in morbidity (renal dysfunction 11 (31%) vs 5 (10%) p=0.025; in-hospital death 7 (20%) vs 3 (6%), p = 0.03; median intensive therapy unit (ITU) stay 6 (3-11) vs 1 (1-4), p < 0.0001). TEVAR was associated with significantly increased procedural costs (£2468 (€2961) vs £9581 (€11495) p ≤ 0.0001). This was chiefly attributable to the cost of endovascular stents. There was no significant difference in overall hospitalisation costs. TEVAR was associated with significantly lower freedom from death or re-operation (log rank p=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in the short term. However, no cost benefit was seen with TEVAR even in the short term. In the long term, due to increased risk of re-interventions TEVAR may actually prove to be a more expensive therapeutic option.