Open, endovascular, or hybrid repair of aortic arch disease: narrative review of diverse strategies with diverse options.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The management of aortic arch disease is complex. Open surgical management continues to evolve, and the introduction of endovascular repair is revolutionizing aortic arch surgery. Although these innovative techniques have generated the opportunity for better outcomes in select patients, they have also introduced confusion and uncertainty regarding best practices. In New York, we have developed a collaborative group named the New York Aortic Consortium (NYAC) as a means of crosslinking knowledge and working together to better understand and treat aortic disease. In our meeting in May 2023, regional aortic experts and invited international experts discussed the contemporary management of aortic arch disease, differences in interpretation of the available literature, as well as the integration of endovascular technology into disease management. In this review article, we summarize the current state of aortic arch surgery. RESULTS: Approaches to aortic arch repair have evolved substantially, whether it be methods to reduce cerebral ischaemia, improve hemostasis, simplify future operations, or expand options for high-risk patients with endovascular approaches. However, the transverse aortic arch remains challenging to repair. Amongst our collaborative group of cardiac/aortic surgeons, we discovered a wide disparity in our practice patterns and management strategies of patients with aortic arch disease. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to build unique institutional expertise in the context of complex and evolving management of aortic arch disease with open surgery, endovascular repair, and hybrid approaches, tailored to the risk profiles and anatomical specifics of individual patients.

Reintervention after valve-sparing aortic root replacement: A comprehensive analysis of 781 David V procedures.

OBJECTIVE: Studies of reintervention after valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSRR) are limited by sample size and failure to evaluate all types of reinterventions, including distal aorta and transcatheter interventions. In this report, reintervention after VSRR using a large patient cohort was comprehensively analyzed. METHODS: In a series involving 2 academic aortic centers, 781 consecutive patients from 2005 to 2020 undergoing David V VSRR for aortic aneurysm (91%) or dissection (9%) were included. Median age was 50 years, and 23% had a bicuspid aortic valve (AV). Median follow-up was 7.0 years. Open or transcatheter reintervention on the AV, proximal, or distal thoracic aorta was identified. Cumulative incidence was calculated, and subdistribution hazard models identified factors associated with reintervention. Time-dependent incidence of reintervention was plotted using risk-hazard functions. RESULTS: Sixty-eight reinterventions (57 open, 11 transcatheter) were performed. Reinterventions were divided by indication into degenerative AV (n = 26, including 1 transcatheter aortic valve replacement), endocarditis (n = 11), proximal aorta (n = 8), and distal aorta (n = 23, including 10 thoracic endovascular aortic repairs). Risk of reintervention for endocarditis peaked 1 to 3 years after VSRR, whereas other indications had stable, low rates of occurrence throughout the follow-up period. The cumulative incidence of reintervention was 12.5% whereas the cumulative incidence of AV reintervention was 7.0% at 10 years and was associated with residual postoperative aortic insufficiency. In-hospital mortality after reintervention was 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention rates after VSRR are relatively low in long-term follow-up and can be performed with acceptable operative risk. The majority of reinterventions are performed for indications other than AV degeneration, with the timing of reintervention varying by the specific clinical indication.

Cognitive Effects of Body Temperature During Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest Trial (GOT ICE): A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Outcomes After Aortic Arch Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Deep hypothermia has been the standard for hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) during aortic arch surgery. However, centers worldwide have shifted toward lesser hypothermia with antegrade cerebral perfusion. This has been supported by retrospective data, but there has yet to be a multicenter, prospective randomized study comparing deep versus moderate hypothermia during HCA. METHODS: This was a randomized single-blind trial (GOT ICE [Cognitive Effects of Body Temperature During Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest]) of patients undergoing arch surgery with HCA plus antegrade cerebral perfusion at 4 US referral aortic centers (August 2016-December 2021). Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 hypothermia groups: DP, deep (≤20.0 °C); LM, low-moderate (20.1-24.0 °C); and HM, high-moderate (24.1-28.0 °C). The primary outcome was composite global cognitive change score between baseline and 4 weeks postoperatively. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle to evaluate if: (1) LM noninferior to DP on global cognitive change score; (2) DP superior to HM. The secondary outcomes were domain-specific cognitive change scores, neuroimaging findings, quality of life, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients consented; 282 met inclusion and were randomized. A total of 273 completed surgery, and 251 completed the 4-week follow-up (DP, 85 [34%]; LM, 80 [34%]; HM, 86 [34%]). Mean global cognitive change score from baseline to 4 weeks in the LM group was noninferior to the DP group; likewise, no significant difference was observed between DP and HM. Noninferiority of LM versus DP, and lack of difference between DP and HM, remained for domain-specific cognitive change scores, except structured verbal memory, with noninferiority of LM versus DP not established and structured verbal memory better preserved in DP versus HM (P = 0.036). There were no significant differences in structural or functional magnetic resonance imaging brain imaging between groups postoperatively. Regardless of temperature, patients who underwent HCA demonstrated significant reductions in cerebral gray matter volume, cortical thickness, and regional brain functional connectivity. Thirty-day in-hospital mortality, major morbidity, and quality of life were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized multicenter study evaluating arch surgery HCA temperature strategies found low-moderate hypothermia noninferior to traditional deep hypothermia on global cognitive change 4 weeks after surgery, although in secondary analysis, structured verbal memory was better preserved in the deep group. The verbal memory differences in the low- and high-moderate groups and structural and functional connectivity reductions from baseline merit further investigation and suggest opportunities to further optimize brain perfusion during HCA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02834065.

Neurological event rates and associated risk factors in acute type B aortic dissections treated by thoracic aortic endovascular repair.

OBJECTIVES: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is the method of choice in patients with complicated type B acute aortic dissection. However, thoracic endovascular aortic repair carries a risk of periprocedural neurological events including stroke and spinal cord ischemia. We aimed to look at procedure-related neurological complications within a large cohort of patients with type B acute aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2021, the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection collected data on 3783 patients with type B acute aortic dissection. For this analysis, 648 patients with type B acute aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair were included (69.4% male, mean age 62.7 ± 13.4 years). Patients were excluded who presented with a preexisting neurologic deficit or received adjunctive procedures. Demographics, clinical symptoms, and outcomes were analyzed. The primary end point was the periprocedural incidence of neurological events (defined as stroke, spinal cord ischemia, transient neurological deficit, or coma). Predictors for perioperative neurological events and follow-up outcomes were considered as secondary end points. RESULTS: Periprocedure neurological events were noted in 72 patients (11.1%) and included strokes (n = 29, 4.6%), spinal cord ischemias (n = 21, 3.3%), transient neurological deficits (n = 16, 2.6%), or coma (n = 6, 1.0%). The group with neurological events had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality (20.8% vs 4.3%, P < .001). Patients with neurological events were more likely to be female (40.3% vs 29.3%, P = .077), and aortic rupture was more often cited as an indication for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (38.8% vs 16.5%, P < .001). In patients with neurological events, more stent grafts were used (2 vs 1 stent graft, P = .002). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that aortic rupture (odds ratio, 3.12, 95% confidence interval, 1.44-6.78, P = .004) and female sex (odds ratio, 1.984, 95% confidence interval, 1.031-3.817, P = .040) were significantly associated with perioperative neurological events. CONCLUSIONS: In this highly selected group from dedicated aortic centers, more than 1 in 10 patients with type B acute aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair had neurological events, in particular women. Further research is needed to identify the causes and presentation of these events after thoracic endovascular aortic repair, especially among women.

Aortic valve-sparing operations: my perspectives.

Valve-sparing procedures have been established as a durable option for treatment of patients with aortic root pathology. Complex cases where aortic valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) is applied require specific surgical techniques to ensure good outcomes. Herein, we review main concepts of VSRR and aortic valve repair. In addition, we provide three complex clinical scenarios: treatment of neo-aortic dilation after a Ross procedure, acute aortic insufficiency in a type A dissection, and chronic aortic insufficiency with a bicuspid aortic valve. Technical suggestions to achieve a safe and durable result are set forth. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01587-4.

Acute-on-Chronic Aortic Dissection: Management and Outcomes of the Unstable "Triple-Lumen" Aorta.

BACKGROUND: The impact of acute aortic dissection of the chronically dissected distal aorta is unknown. This study sought to describe the incidence and characteristics of the triple-lumen aortic dissection and its impact on survival. METHODS: From 2010 to 2021, a query of a single-institution aortic database identified 1149 patients with chronic distal aortic dissection. Thirty-three (2.9%) patients with at least 3 distinct lumens and 2 separate "primary" intimal tears were identified by analysis of contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging. Triple-lumen patients were exactly matched with a cohort of double-lumen patients on a 1:1 ratio using 5 preoperative variables, and outcomes between the groups were assessed. RESULTS: The median age at time of initial dissection in patients with a triple-lumen dissection was 46 years. Initial dissection was a type A in 33% and a type B in 67% of patients. The median time from initial dissection to triple-lumen diagnosis was 4.2 years. On diagnosis of the triple-lumen aorta, 85% of patients required urgent aortic repair for rapid growth (36%), aortic diameter ≥55 mm (30%), malperfusion (6%), intractable pain (6%), and rupture/type A (6%). Thirty-day mortality after triple lumen dissection was 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Acute-on-chronic distal dissection resulting in a triple-lumen aorta should be classified as a "complicated" type B dissection as these patients typically have large aneurysms and a high incidence of rapid false lumen expansion requiring urgent surgical repair.

Reoperative aortic root replacement for prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis: impact of aortic graft.

OBJECTIVES: Existing aortic graft complicates the surgical management of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE); yet, its impact has not been well studied. We compared outcomes of patients with prior aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus aortic surgery plus AVR, who underwent reoperative aortic root replacement (ARR) for PVE of the aortic valve. METHODS: All patients who underwent reoperative ARR for PVE between 2004 and 2021 from 2 aortic centres were included. Two groups were formed based on the presence/absence of aortic graft: prior aortic surgery (AO) and prior AVR (AV) alone. Inverse propensity treatment weighting matched the groups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyse long-term survival, and Fine and Gray model was used to compare the cumulative incidence of reoperation. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were included (AO n = 59; AV n = 71). After matching, AO patients had increased stroke incidence (12.4% vs 0.9%) and renal failure requiring dialysis (11.5% vs 2.5%). In-hospital mortality was comparable (21.5% AO and 18.6% AV). Survival over 5 years was 68.9% (56.6-83.8%) in AO and 62.7% (48.1-81.7%) in AV (P = 0.70). The cumulative incidence of reoperation was similar [AO 6.3% (0.0-13.2%) vs AV 6.1% (0.0-15.1%), P = 0.69]. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperative ARRs for prosthetic valve/graft endocarditis are high-risk procedures. AO patients had higher incidence of postoperative morbidity versus AV patients. For all patients surviving operative intervention, survival and reoperation rates over 5 years were comparable between groups.

Valve-sparing root replacement-reimplantation technique.

The first valve sparing root replacement (VSRR) was first described over thirty years ago. Reimplantation is favored at our institution to provide maximum annular support in the setting of annuloaortic ectasia. Multiple iterations for this operation have been reported. Surgical intervention varies in terms of graft sizing, the number and method of inflow suture placement, strategy for annular plication and stabilization, and finally choice of graft type. Our specific technique has evolved over the last eighteen years and the current approach is to use a larger straight graft loosely based on the original Feindel-David formula, six inflow sutures to anchor the graft, and some degree of annular plication with annular stabilization. The long-term results for both trileaflet and bicuspid valves are associated with a low reintervention rate. Herein we provide a clear outline for our specific approach to the reimplantation technique.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Bentall versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement for root pathology with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency: a propensity-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients with moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (AI) undergoing either a Bentall aortic root replacement (ARR) or valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR). METHODS: A two-centre retrospective database of patients undergoing ARR from 2004 to 2021 was reviewed. Patients <18 years old were excluded. A total of 1527 adult patients underwent Bentall ARR (n = 1150, 75%) or VSRR (n = 377, 25%). Propensity score matching based on preoperative comorbidities was used and 195 matched pairs were identified. Perioperative outcomes, reoperation rates, recurrence of AI and long-term survival were evaluated. RESULTS: ARR patients had more concomitant ascending aortic replacement (35% vs 20%, P = 0.002) and shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (189 vs 233 min, P < 0.0001) and aortic cross-clamp (170 vs 204 min, P < 0.0001) times than the VSRR group. Postoperatively, outcomes were similar between groups, including stroke (3% vs 2%) and in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs 2.1%), all P > 0.05. Indications for and rates of reoperation (4% vs 5%, P = 0.62) of the aortic valve and proximal aorta were similar between ARR and VSRR groups with reoperations occurring a mean of 3.2 years after initial root replacement. The ARR group had less moderate-to-severe AI than the VSRR group (1.6% vs 14%, P = 0.002) a mean of 3 years after surgery. Ten-year survival was similar between ARR (84%) and VSRR (82%) (P = 0.69) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both ARR and VSRR can be performed with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe AI.

Myths and methodologies: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing for surgical risk stratification in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm; balancing risk over benefit.

The extent to which patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) should exercise remains unclear, given theoretical concerns over the perceived risk of blood pressure-induced rupture, which is often catastrophic. This is especially pertinent during cardiopulmonary exercise testing, when patients are required to perform incremental exercise to symptom-limited exhaustion for the determination of cardiorespiratory fitness. This multimodal metric is being used increasingly as a complementary diagnostic tool to inform risk stratification and subsequent management of patients undergoing AAA surgery. In this review, we bring together a multidisciplinary group of physiologists, exercise scientists, anaesthetists, radiologists and surgeons to challenge the enduring 'myth' that AAA patients should be fearful of and avoid rigorous exercise. On the contrary, by appraising fundamental vascular mechanobiological forces associated with exercise, in conjunction with 'methodological' recommendations for risk mitigation specific to this patient population, we highlight that the benefits conferred by cardiopulmonary exercise testing and exercise training across the continuum of intensity far outweigh the short-term risks posed by potential AAA rupture.

Editor's Choice - Trends in Management and Outcomes of Type B Aortic Dissection: A Report From the International Registry of Aortic Dissection.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute type B aortic dissection in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection. METHODS: From 1996 - 2022, 3 908 patients were divided into similar sized quartiles (T1, T2, T3, and T4). In hospital outcomes were analysed for each quartile. Survival rates following admission were compared using Kaplan-Meier analyses with Mantel-Cox Log rank tests. RESULTS: Endovascular treatment increased from 19.1% in T1 to 37.2% in T4 (ptrend < .001). Correspondingly, medical therapy decreased from 65.7% in T1 to 54.0% in T4 (ptrend < .001), and open surgery from 14.8% in T1 to 7.0% in T4 (ptrend < .001). In hospital mortality decreased in the overall cohort from 10.7% in T1 to 6.1% in T4 (ptrend < .001), as well as in medically, endovascularly and surgically treated patients (ptrend = .017, .033, and .011, respectively). Overall post-admission survival at three years increased (T1: 74.8% vs. T4: 77.3%; p = .006). CONCLUSION: Considerable changes in the management of acute type B aortic dissection were observed over time, with a significant increase in the use of endovascular treatment and a corresponding reduction in open surgery and medical management. These changes were associated with a decreased overall in hospital and three year post-admission mortality rate among quartiles.