Aortic root surgery with circulatory arrest: Predictors of prolonged postoperative hospital stay.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the outcomes of aortic root operations that involve inducing hypothermic circulatory arrest for relatively extensive proximal aortic surgery. We attempted to identify predictors of postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS) and factors that affect postoperative recovery. METHODS: During 2006-2014, 247 of 265 patients (93.2%) with disease extending into the aortic arch survived aortic root operations (206 elective, 41 urgent/emergent) in which hypothermic circulatory arrest with moderate hypothermia was used. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of LOS (as a continuous variable) and prolonged LOS (defined as LOS >9 days, the median for the cohort). By this definition, 111 patients (45%) had prolonged LOS and 136 (55%) did not. RESULTS: Preoperative factors that independently predicted longer LOS in the entire cohort included age (P = .0014), redo sternotomy (P = .0047), and intraoperative packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion (P = .0007). Redo sternotomy and intraoperative PRBC transfusion also predicted longer LOS in 3 subgroup analyses: one of elective cases, one from which total arch replacement procedures were excluded, and one limited to patients who were discharged home. Age predicted longer LOS in the non-total arch (hemiarch) replacement patients. Ventilator support >48 hours (P < .0001) was associated with longer LOS. Elective aortic valve-sparing root replacement predicted a shorter LOS than valve replacement in multivariate regression analysis (P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing aortic root surgery with hypothermic circulatory arrest for disease extending into the aortic arch, reducing intraoperative PRBC transfusion except when absolutely necessary may reduce postoperative LOS and expedite recovery. Performing aortic valve-sparing root replacement, when feasible, may also reduce LOS.

Moderate hypothermia at warmer temperatures is safe in elective proximal and total arch surgery: Results in 665 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate adverse outcomes after elective aortic arch surgery performed at higher or lower temperatures (24.0°C-28.0°C vs 20.1°C-23.9°C) within the wide range of moderate hypothermia. METHODS: Over a 9-year period, a total of 665 patients underwent elective proximal (n = 479) or total (n = 186) arch replacement with moderate hypothermia and antegrade cerebral perfusion. Circulatory arrest was initiated at an actual temperature of 20.1°C to 23.9°C in the lower-temperature group (n = 334; 223 proximal, 111 total) and at 24.0°C to 28.0°C in the higher-temperature group (n = 331; 256 proximal, 75 total). Composite adverse outcome was defined as operative mortality or persistent neurologic event or persistent hemodialysis at discharge. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to model adverse outcome. In addition to the actual temperature, a new, balanced variable, "predicted temperature," was analyzed to eliminate surgeon bias. We used this variable in a propensity score-matching analysis to validate the multivariate analysis results. RESULTS: A composite adverse outcome occurred in 7.2% of cases. Operative mortality was 5.1%. The rate of postoperative persistent neurologic deficits was 2.4%. No significant differences were found between the lower- and higher-predicted temperature groups within the moderate hypothermia range in the propensity score-matching analysis. The higher-actual temperature group had a lower rate of ventilator support at >48 hours (P = .036) and less need for tracheostomy (P = .023). Packed red blood cell transfusion and previous coronary artery bypass independently predicted composite adverse outcome (P = .0053 and .0002, respectively), operative mortality (P = .0051 and .0041), and postoperative stroke (P = .045 and .048). Cardiopulmonary bypass time independently predicted composite outcome (P = .0005), operative mortality (P < .0001), ventilatory support for >48 hours (P < .0001), and renal dysfunction (P = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: In elective proximal or total arch surgery, higher temperatures (≥24.0°C-28.0°C) within the wide range of moderate hypothermia (20.1°C-28°C) are safe and, compared with colder temperatures, not associated with significantly different rates of composite and adverse outcomes.

Moderate hypothermia ≥24 and ≤28°C with hypothermic circulatory arrest for proximal aortic operations in patients with previous cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether, in patients with previous cardiac operations, moderate hypothermia (between 24 and 28°C) for hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) during antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP) is safe for use during surgery on the proximal aorta and transverse aortic arch. METHODS: Over a 7-year period, 118 patients underwent ascending aortic and hemiarch repair (n = 70; 59.3%), total arch replacement (n = 47; 39.8%) or ascending aortic replacement to treat porcelain aorta (n = 1; 0.9%). Simultaneous procedures included aortic root repair or replacement (n = 33; 28.0%) and coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 21; 17.8%). All patients had previously undergone cardiac operations via a median sternotomy. Eighteen patients (15.3%) had more than 1 previous sternotomy, and 24 patients (20.3%) required emergent/urgent operation. Median cardiopulmonary bypass, cardiac ischaemic, circulatory arrest and ACP times (min) were 136.0 [118-180 interquartile range (IQR)], 91.0 (68-119 IQR), 34.0 (21-59 IQR) and 33.5 (20-59 IQR), respectively. The median temperature when HCA was initiated was 24.2°C (24.1-24.8°C IQR). RESULTS: The operative mortality rate was 10.2% (n = 12). Six patients (5.1%) had a permanent stroke, and 16 patients (13.6%) had a composite adverse outcome (operative mortality and/or a permanent neurological event and/or permanent haemodialysis at discharge). Preoperative renal disease was significantly more prevalent (P= 0.020) and the median circulatory arrest time significantly longer (48.5 vs 33 min; P= 0.058) in patients with composite adverse outcomes. Multivariable analysis of the redo patients showed that age (P =0.025), preoperative renal disease (P =0.024) and ACP time (P =0.012) were independent risk factors for a new postoperative renal injury. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate hypothermia for HCA during ACP is being used with increasing frequency, but has not been thoroughly evaluated in patients undergoing cardiovascular reoperations. Our experience suggests that in patients with previous cardiac surgery who are undergoing hemiarch and total aortic arch operations, moderate hypothermia is safe and produces respectable results.

Outcomes of 3309 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs.

OBJECTIVE: Since the pioneering era of E. Stanley Crawford, our multimodal strategy for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair has evolved. We describe our approximately 3-decade single-practice experience regarding 3309 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs and identify predictors of early death and other adverse postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed retrospective (1986-2006) and prospective data (2006-2014) obtained from patients (2043 male; median age, 67 [59-73] years) who underwent 914 Crawford extent I, 1066 extent II, 660 extent III, and 669 extent IV thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, of which 723 (21.8%) were urgent or emergency. Repairs were performed to treat degenerative aneurysm (64.2%) or aortic dissection (35.8%). The outcomes examined included operative death (ie, 30-day or in-hospital death) and permanent stroke, paraplegia, paraparesis, and renal failure necessitating dialysis, as well as adverse event, a composite of these outcomes. RESULTS: There were 249 operative deaths (7.5%). Permanent paraplegia and paraparesis occurred after 97 (2.9%) and 81 (2.4%) repairs, respectively. Of 189 patients (5.7%) with permanent renal failure, 107 died in the hospital. Permanent stroke was relatively uncommon (n = 74; 2.2%). The rate of the composite adverse event (n = 478; 14.4%) was highest after extent II repair (n = 203; 19.0%) and lowest after extent IV repair (n = 67; 10.2%; P < .0001). Estimated postoperative survival was 83.5% ± 0.7% at 1 year, 63.6% ± 0.9% at 5 years, 36.8% ± 1.0% at 10 years, and 18.3% ± 0.9% at 15 years. CONCLUSIONS: Repairing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms poses substantial risks, particularly when the entire thoracoabdominal aorta (extent II) is replaced. Nonetheless, our data suggest that thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, when performed at an experienced center, can produce respectable outcomes.

Total aortic arch replacement: A comparative study of zone 0 hybrid arch exclusion versus traditional open repair.

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to identify predictors of adverse outcomes after traditional open and hybrid zone 0 total aortic arch replacement. METHODS: We performed multivariable analysis using 16 variables to identify predictors of adverse outcomes (mortality, permanent neurologic events, and permanent renal failure necessitating hemodialysis) in 319 consecutive patients who underwent total aortic arch replacement in the past 8.5 years and a subgroup analysis in 25 propensity-matched pairs. A total of 274 patients (85.9%) had traditional open repair, and 45 patients (14.1%) had hybrid zone 0 total arch exclusion. RESULTS: Operative mortality was 10.3% (n = 33): 11.1% (n = 5) in the hybrid group and 10.2% (n = 28) in the traditional group (P = .79). A total of 19 patients (5.9%) had permanent stroke (15 traditional [5.5%] vs 4 hybrid [8.9%]; P = .32), and 2 patients (both traditional) had permanent paraplegia (P = 1.00). The hybrid group had more total neurologic events (P = .051) but not more permanent strokes (P = .32). Prior cardiac disease unrelated to the aorta (P = .0033) and congestive heart failure (P = .0053) independently predicted permanent adverse outcome (operative mortality, permanent neurologic event, or permanent renal failure). Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting independently predicted permanent stroke (P = .032), as did previous cerebrovascular disease (P = .032). In multivariable analysis, procedure type (hybrid or traditional) was not an independent predictor of stroke (P = .09). During a median follow-up of 4.5 years (95% confidence interval, 3.9-4.9), survival was 78.7%, with no intergroup difference (P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Among contemporary cases, both traditional and hybrid total aortic arch replacement had acceptable results. Comparing these 2 different surgical treatment options is challenging, and an individualized approach offers the best results. Permanent adverse outcome was not significantly different between the 2 groups. Procedure type is not an independent predictor of permanent stroke. Prior cardiac disease, past or current smoking, and congestive heart failure predict adverse outcomes for total aortic arch replacement.

Hemiarch and Total Arch Surgery in Patients With Previous Repair of Acute Type I Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: We examined our contemporary experience with hemiarch and total arch replacement in patients with previous acute type I aortic dissection. METHODS: Over an 8.5-year period, 137 consecutive patients (median age 58 years, interquartile range, 50 to 67) underwent hemiarch or total transverse aortic arch replacement a median of 7.7 years (range, 67 days to 32 years; interquartile range, 2.8 to 12.3 years) after previous acute type I aortic dissection repair. Interventions involving only the aortic root, aortic valve, descending aorta, or thoracoabdominal aorta were excluded. Multivariate analysis of 20 potential preoperative and intraoperative risk factors was performed to examine early death, neurologic deficit, composite endpoint (operative death, permanent neurologic deficit, or hemodialysis at discharge), and long-term mortality. RESULTS: Total arch replacement was performed in 103 patients (75.2%), hemiarch replacement in 34 (24.8%), and elephant trunk procedures in 77 (56.2%). Thirty-one repairs (22.6%) were emergent or urgent. There were 16 operative deaths (11.7%), 4 permanent strokes (3.6%), and 21 (15.3%) instances of the composite endpoint. In the multivariate analysis, congestive heart failure and cardiopulmonary bypass time independently predicted operative mortality (p = 0.0027, p = 0.018). Emergency operation approached significance for stroke (p = 0.088). Predictors of long-term mortality (during a median follow-up period of 5.1 years, 95% confidence interval: 4.4 to 5.8) were female sex (p = 0.0036), congestive heart failure (p = 0.0045), and circulatory arrest time (p = 0.0013); preoperative pulmonary disease approached significance (p = 0.074). Five-year survival was 73.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previous acute type I aortic dissection repair, hemiarch and total arch operations have respectable morbidity and survival rates. Congestive heart failure predicts operative death, long-term mortality, and our adverse event endpoint. Cardiopulmonary bypass time predicts operative mortality, and female sex and circulatory arrest time predict long-term mortality.

Retrograde Ascending Aortic Dissection After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Distal Aortic Dissection or With Zone 0 Landing: Association, Risk Factors, and True Incidence.

BACKGROUND: We attempted to determine the true incidence of retrograde ascending aortic dissection (rAAD) and to challenge its reported association with distal aortic dissection or zone 0 deployment. METHODS: From January 2005 to August 2014, 305 patients who were at risk for rAAD underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair. We excluded patients with prior ascending, hemiarch, or traditional or frozen elephant trunk grafts, or who required concomitant ascending graft placement. Patients in group A (n = 111, 36.4%) had distal aortic dissection or hematoma (n = 75, 67.6%) or required landing of the endograft in zone 0 of the native ascending aorta (n = 36, 32.4%). Patients in group B (n = 194, 63.6%) had nondissected descending or distal arch aneurysm (n = 172), penetrating ulcer (n = 9), coarctation (n = 6), endoleak not caused by dissection (n = 3), aortobronchial fistula (n = 3), or transection (n = 1). RESULTS: The incidence of rAAD was 1.3% overall (n = 4), 0.9% in group A (n = 1, Cook Zenith TX2), and 1.5% in group B (n = 3; 1 Talent Captivia, 2 Cook Zenith TX2; p = 0.64). No zone 0-treated patient had rAAD. Two patients from group B died, and 1 was treated nonoperatively. The median interval between thoracic endovascular aortic repair and rAAD was 11 days (range, 0 to 90 days). CONCLUSIONS: Post-thoracic endovascular aortic repair rAAD is a rare but lethal complication. Operator experience is crucial for prompt recognition and prevention. It does not appear that rAAD is specifically associated with distal aortic dissection or landing in zone 0. To our knowledge, this is one of the few studies to report the true incidence of rAAD in at-risk patients.

Reprint of: Reoperations on the total aortic arch in 119 patients: short- and mid-term outcomes, focusing on composite adverse outcomes and survival analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the preoperative and perioperative risk factors that significantly predict adverse outcomes after total arch replacement in patients with previous proximal aortic surgery and to analyze patient survival. METHODS: We performed univariate analysis and logistic regression on data extracted from a prospectively maintained database for 119 patients who had undergone total arch operations during a 7.5-year period. All patients had undergone previous proximal aortic surgery. The adverse outcome was defined as a single composite endpoint comprising operative mortality, permanent neurologic deficit, and renal failure necessitating permanent hemodialysis. RESULTS: The incidence of the composite endpoint was 13.5% (16 of 119 patients). The univariate predictors were preoperative pulmonary disease (P = .010), cardiac ischemia time (P = .032), and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (P = .073). On multivariate analysis, the following were predictors of the composite endpoint: preoperative pulmonary disease (P = .036), CPB time (P = .039), concomitant coronary artery bypass (P = .0057), previous aortic valve replacement (P = .027), and previous thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery (P = .057). Multivariate analysis showed that the CPB time predicted mortality (P = .0044), and previous thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery predicted stroke (P = .034). The overall survival was 85.3% during a median follow-up of 4.76 years (95% confidence interval, 4.2-5.1). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic arch reoperations, although technically demanding, can produce acceptable results. Preoperative pulmonary disease, CPB time, and concomitant coronary artery bypass predicted an adverse outcome. The CPB time predicted mortality, and previous thoracoabdominal aortic surgery predicted stroke.

Innominate artery cannulation for proximal aortic surgery: outcomes and neurological events in 263 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether innominate artery cannulation is the ideal perfusion strategy for delivering antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP) during surgery on the proximal ascending aorta and transverse aortic arch. METHODS: A total of 263 patients underwent innominate artery cannulation with a side graft for surgery on the proximal aorta. Operations performed were ascending and proximal arch replacement (n = 213, 81.0%), ascending and total arch replacement (n = 33, 12.6%) and ascending aortic replacement (n = 12, 4.6%). Concomitant or other procedures included aortic root replacement and repair (n = 113, 43.0%), aortic valve replacement or repair (n = 118, 44.9%), coronary artery bypass (n = 40, 15.2%), antegrade stent graft delivery to the proximal descending thoracic aorta for aneurysm or dissection (n = 28, 10.7%), mitral valve repair (n = 11, 4.2%), patent foramen ovale repair (n = 3, 1.1%) and tricuspid valve repair (n = 2, 0.8%). Twenty-seven patients (10.3%) presented with acute or subacute Type I aortic dissection, and 45 (17.1%) had a previous sternotomy. Median cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), cardiac ischaemia and ACP times were 126.0 [95-163 interquartile range (IQR)], 91.0 (73-121 IQR) and 21.0 (16-32 IQR) min. Bilateral ACP was delivered in 235 patients (90.7%). RESULTS: The operative mortality rate was 4.9% (n = 13). Nine patients (3.4%) had postoperative stroke, which was permanent in 5 (1.9%) of them. Multivariate analysis associated risk of stroke or temporary neurological deficit with acute or subacute Type I aortic dissection (P = 0.028) and age (P = 0.015). Renal disease (P = 0.036) and CPB time (P = 0.011) were independent risk factors for operative mortality. Circulatory arrest time was identified as a risk factor for mortality (P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Innominate artery cannulation can be performed safely and poses a low risk of neurological events in procedures requiring hypothermic circulatory arrest. The technique for cannulating this artery should be part of the routine armamentarium of cardiac and aortic surgeons, and the innominate artery is among the preferred perfusion sites for delivering ACP.

Unilateral versus bilateral cerebral perfusion for acute type A aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP) is standard treatment for complex aortic pathology and includes both unilateral (u-ACP) and bilateral (b-ACP) techniques. Focusing on proximal acute aortic dissection, we investigated the clinical effect of u-ACP versus b-ACP. METHODS: From January 2005 to May 2013, 157 consecutive patients presented with acute type A aortic dissection. Antegrade cerebral perfusion was used in 153 patients (97.4%). Ninety patients (58.8%) received u-ACP, and 63 (41.2%) received b-ACP. No retrograde cerebral perfusion was used. The target systemic hypothermia temperature during ACP was 22° to 24°C. The mean ACP, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cardiac ischemia times were 34.6 ± 18.0, 125.6 ± 48.0, and 92.6 ± 34.1 minutes, respectively. RESULTS: The p values from logistic regression models indicated that in both groups combined, the ACP, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cardiac ischemia times predicted hospital mortality (p = 0.035, p = 0.0033, and p = 0.035, respectively) but not stroke. The operative mortality was 13.3% (n = 12) with u-ACP and 12.7% (n = 8) with b-ACP (p = 0.91). Of the survivors, 13 of 88 u-ACP patients (14.8%) and 8 of 62 b-ACP patients (12.9%) had a postoperative stroke (p = 0.75). A circulatory arrest time of >30 minutes was associated with stroke (p = 0.031). Temporary neurologic dysfunction was present in 10 u-ACP (11.4%) and 5 b-ACP (8.2%) patients (p = 0.53). Postoperative renal failure occurred in 10 u-ACP (11.4%) and 10 b-ACP patients (16.1%) (p = 0.40). Antegrade stent delivery in the descending thoracic aorta did not affect the ACP, cardiac ischemia, circulatory arrest, or cardiopulmonary bypass times. CONCLUSIONS: As one of the largest single-center studies of the efficacy of u-ACP and b-ACP in patients with type A aortic dissection, operative mortality, stroke, temporary neurologic dysfunction, and renal failure rates were similar in both. In this intrinsically complex disease, survival is the most important outcome; u-ACP may provide cardiac surgeons with valuable technical simplicity during challenging procedures, and b-ACP may be justified for circulatory arrest times of more than 30 minutes.

Left ventricular aneurysm repair with use of a bovine pericardial patch.

Left ventricular aneurysm, which can impair systolic function, has a reported incidence of 10% to 35% in patients after myocardial infarction. In a 58-year-old woman who had a history of myocardial infarction, we excised a large left ventricular aneurysm and restored left ventricular geometry with use of a bovine pericardial patch. The aneurysm's characteristics and the patient's preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.25 had indicated surgical intervention. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course, and her left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.50 to 0.55 on the 4th postoperative day. This case illustrates the value of surgical treatment for patients who have a debilitating left ventricular aneurysm.

Reoperations on the total aortic arch in 119 patients: short- and mid-term outcomes, focusing on composite adverse outcomes and survival analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the preoperative and perioperative risk factors that significantly predict adverse outcomes after total arch replacement in patients with previous proximal aortic surgery and to analyze patient survival. METHODS: We performed univariate analysis and logistic regression on data extracted from a prospectively maintained database for 119 patients who had undergone total arch operations during a 7.5-year period. All patients had undergone previous proximal aortic surgery. The adverse outcome was defined as a single composite endpoint comprising operative mortality, permanent neurologic deficit, and renal failure necessitating permanent hemodialysis. RESULTS: The incidence of the composite endpoint was 13.5% (16 of 119 patients). The univariate predictors were preoperative pulmonary disease (P = .010), cardiac ischemia time (P = .032), and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (P = .073). On multivariate analysis, the following were predictors of the composite endpoint: preoperative pulmonary disease (P = .036), CPB time (P = .039), concomitant coronary artery bypass (P = .0057), previous aortic valve replacement (P = .027), and previous thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery (P = .057). Multivariate analysis showed that the CPB time predicted mortality (P = .0044), and previous thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery predicted stroke (P = .034). The overall survival was 85.3% during a median follow-up of 4.76 years (95% confidence interval, 4.2-5.1). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic arch reoperations, although technically demanding, can produce acceptable results. Preoperative pulmonary disease, CPB time, and concomitant coronary artery bypass predicted an adverse outcome. The CPB time predicted mortality, and previous thoracoabdominal aortic surgery predicted stroke.

Homograft use in reoperative aortic root and proximal aortic surgery for endocarditis: A 12-year experience in high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the early and midterm outcomes of homograft use in reoperative aortic root and proximal aortic surgery for endocarditis and estimated the associated risk of postoperative reinfection. METHODS: From January 2001 to January 2014, 355 consecutive patients underwent reoperation of the proximal thoracic aorta. Thirty-nine patients (10.9%; mean age, 55.4 ± 13.3 years) presented with active endocarditis; 30 (76.9%) had prosthetic aortic root infection with or without concomitant ascending and arch graft infection, and 9 (23.1%) had proximal ascending aortic graft infection with or without aortic valve involvement. Sixteen patients (41.0%) had genetically triggered thoracic aortic disease. Twelve patients (30.8%) had more than 1 prior sternotomy (mean, 2.4 ± 0.6). RESULTS: Valved homografts were used to replace the aortic root in 29 patients (74.4%); nonvalved homografts were used to replace the ascending aorta in 10 patients (25.6%). Twenty-five patients (64.1%) required concomitant proximal arch replacement with a homograft, and 2 patients (5.1%) required a total arch homograft. Median cardiopulmonary bypass, cardiac ischemia, and circulatory arrest times were 186 (137-253) minutes, 113 (59-151) minutes, and 28 (16-81) minutes. Operative mortality was 10.3% (n = 4). The rate of permanent stroke was 2.6% (n = 1); 3 additional patients had transient neurologic events. One patient (1/35, 2.9%) returned with aortic valve stenosis 10 years after the homograft operation. During the follow-up period (median, 2.5 years; range, 1 month to 12.3 years), no reinfection was reported, and survival was 65.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest North American single-center series of homograft use in reoperations on the proximal thoracic aorta to treat active endocarditis. In this high-risk population, homograft tissue can be used with acceptable early and midterm survival and a low risk of reinfection. When necessary, homograft tissue may be extended into the distal ascending and transverse aortic arch, with excellent results. These patients require long-term surveillance for both infection and implant durability.

Endovascular therapy in patients with genetically triggered thoracic aortic disease: applications and short- and mid-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: For patients with genetically triggered thoracic aortic disease, the morbidity and mortality associated with reoperation are high, making endovascular treatment an appealing option. We evaluated the short- and mid-term outcomes of different applications of endovascular intervention in such patients. METHODS: Between January 2003 and April 2013, 60 patients received endovascular or hybrid treatment for genetically triggered thoracic aortic disease. The inclusion criteria were based on those devised by the National Registry of Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Cardiovascular Conditions. We included patients with thoracic aneurysm or dissection not due to trauma in a patient aged ≤50 years (n = 30), bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and coarctation (n = 11), Marfan syndrome (n = 10), BAV with thoracic aneurysm (n = 4), Loeys-Dietz syndrome (n = 3), familial thoracic aneurysm or dissection (n = 3) and genetic mutations (n = 2). Some patients met more than one inclusion criterion. Forty-one (68.3%) patients were treated with only endovascular stent grafting. Nineteen (31.7%) patients underwent a hybrid procedure with open proximal or total arch replacement and concomitant endovascular stenting of the aortic arch or the descending thoracic aorta. Twenty-nine (48.3%) had previous cardiovascular operations (mean ± SD, 1.9 ± 1.4) before undergoing hybrid or endovascular therapy. The median follow-up was 2.3 years (interquartile interval 25-75%, 1.4-4.6 years). RESULTS: The technical success rate was 100%. In-hospital mortality was 3.3% (n = 2) and neurological events occurred in 2 patients; 1 (1.6%) had a stroke and 1 (1.6%) suffered paraparesis with partial recovery. Fifteen repeat open or endovascular interventions were required in 10 surviving patients (17.2%). Overall survival during follow-up was 94.8% (55/58). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular technology can be helpful in treating selected young patients with genetically triggered thoracic aortic disease. Long-term studies and further evolution of endovascular technology will be necessary for it to be incorporated into the armamentarium of surgical options for this challenging patient population.

Acute type I aortic dissection: traditional versus hybrid repair with antegrade stent delivery to the descending thoracic aorta.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the short-term outcomes between patients who had undergone classic repair for type I aortic dissection and those who had undergone concomitant antegrade stenting in the descending thoracic aorta. METHODS: From January 2005 to December 2012, 112 patients were treated for acute type I aortic dissection. Eighty-seven patients (group A) underwent traditional operations on the ascending and proximal arch (n = 79, 90.8%), total arch (n = 7, 8.1%), or ascending aorta (n = 1, 1.2%). Twenty-five patients (group B) underwent ascending and proximal arch repair and antegrade stent grafting in the descending thoracic aorta. Various concomitant procedures were performed in both groups. The circulatory arrest times were similar between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was 13.8% (n = 12) in group A and 12% (n = 3) in group B. Nine patients in group A (10.3%) and 3 in group B (12%) experienced a postoperative stroke. In group A, 1 patients (1.5%) developed transient spinal cord ischemia, and in group B, 2 patients had transient paraparesis (8.0%). Preoperatively, 24 group A patients and 19 group B patients had malperfusion; this condition resolved postoperatively in 13 group A patients (54.2%) and 16 group B patients (84.2%; P < .037). Eight group A patients (10.8%) and 1 group B patient (4.5%) underwent additional postoperative procedures on the thoracoabdominal aorta a median of 776.5 days (range, 168.5-1102.0) and 54 days postoperatively, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Antegrade endovascular grafting of the descending thoracic aorta during repair of acute type I aortic dissection is technically safe, does not increase the circulatory arrest time, and could help patients with preoperative malperfusion. Long-term follow-up data are needed.