Early outcome of simplified total arch reconstruction under mild hypothermia (30-32 °C) with distal aortic perfusion.

OBJECTIVE: We designed a simplified total arch reconstruction (s-TAR) technique which could be performed under mild hypothermia (30-32 °C) with distal aortic perfusion. This study aimed to compare its efficacy of organ protection with the conventional total arch reconstruction (c-TAR). METHODS: We reviewed the clinical data of 195 patients who had ascending aortic aneurysm with extended aortic arch dilation and underwent simultaneous ascending aorta replacement and TAR procedure between January 2018 and December 2022 in our center. 105 received c-TAR under moderate hypothermia (25-28 °C) with circulatory arrest (c-TAR group); rest 90 received s-TAR under mild hypothermia (30-32 °C) with distal aortic perfusion (s-TAR group). RESULTS: The s-TAR group demonstrated shorter CPB time, cross-clamp time and lower body circulatory arrest time compared with the c-TAR group. The 30-day mortality was 2.9% for the c-TAR group and 1.1% for the s-TAR group (P = 0.043). The mean duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the s-TAR group. Paraplegia was observed in 4 of 105 patients (3.8%) in the c-TAR group, while no such events were observed in the s-TAR group. The incidence of temporary neurologic dysfunction was significantly higher in the c-TAR group. The incidence of permanent neurologic dysfunction also showed a tendency to be higher in the c-TAR group, without statistical significance. Furthermore, the incidence of reoperation for bleeding were significantly lower in the s-TAR group. The rate of postoperative hepatic dysfunction and all grades of AKI was remarkably lower in the s-TAR group. The 3-year survival rate was 95.6% in the s-TAR group and 91.4% in the c-TAR group. CONCLUSIONS: s-TAR under mild hypothermia (30-32℃) with distal aortic perfusion is associated with lower mortality and morbidity, offering better neurological and visceral organ protection compared with c-TAR.

A modified prosthesis eversion technique for proximal anastomosis in ascending aorta replacement.

Background: One of the crucial aspects of ascending aorta replacement is to achieve hemostasis of the proximal anastomosis. This study aimed to describe a modified prosthesis eversion technique for proximal anastomosis in ascending aorta replacement and compare its operative outcomes with the conventional prosthesis eversion technique. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who had ascending aortic aneurysm and underwent ascending aorta replacement with the modified or conventional prosthesis eversion technique between January 2019 and December 2022 in our center. Results: A total of 108 patients were included: 55 in the modified group and 53 in the conventional group. The durations of cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamping and total operation in the conventional group were longer than those in the modified group. Furthermore, perioperative blood loss and the incidence of re-exploration for bleeding were significantly lower in the modified group. Accordingly, patients in the conventional group accepted more blood transfusion. The modified group had a shorter duration in intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital, and lower total hospitalization costs than those in the conventional group. Conclusions: The modified prosthesis eversion technique is an effective alternative for proximal anastomosis in ascending aorta replacement, with less blood loss, shorter operation time, and lower rate of postoperative complications compared with the conventional technique.

Prognostic impact of new permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) are common following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). There were conflicting data regarding the impact of new PPI on clinical outcomes after TAVR. OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate the impact of new PPI on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Data were from 210 consecutive patients without prior PPI who underwent TAVR due to severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at our center between June 2018 and July 2020. Clinical, echocardiographic, and pacing data were assessed at 30-day, 1- and 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: New PPI was required in 35 (16.7%) patients within 30 days after TAVR. The median time from TAVR to PPI was 3 days. The most common indication for PPI was high-degree or complete atrioventricular block. The median follow-up was 798.0 (interquartile range, 669.0-1115.0) days. There were no differences in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-2.36; p = 0.415) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.57-1.89; p = 0.609) between groups. However, PPI group had a higher risk of heart failure (HF) rehospitalization (adjusted HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.26-2.28; p = 0.027). Echocardiography showed no significant improvement of LVEF over time in patients with PPI. At the latest follow-up, 31.3% of patients exhibited low (≤10%) pacing burdens, whereas 28.1% of patients had near constant (>90%) right ventricular pacing. CONCLUSIONS: New PPI within 30 days following TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. However, patients with PPI had a higher risk of HF rehospitalization and lack of LVEF improvement.

Simplified total arch reconstruction with a stented graft for extended aortic arch dilation.

Background: Reconstruction of the aortic arch and its three supra-aortic vessels remains a great surgical challenge with postoperative complications. We present a simplified total arch reconstruction with a modified stent graft (s-TAR) and compared its operative outcomes with conventional total arch replacement (c-TAR). Methods: This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from all consecutive patients who had ascending aortic aneurysm with extended aortic arch dilation and underwent simultaneous ascending aorta replacement and aortic arch reconstruction with the s-TAR or c-TAR between 2018 and 2021. The indication for intervention was maximum diameter of ascending aorta >55 mm and aortic arch in zone II >35 mm. Results: A total of 84 patients were analyzed: 43 in the s-TAR group and 41 in the c-TAR group. No inter-group differences were found for sex, age, comorbidities, or EuroSCORE II results. All patients were successfully treated with s-TAR or c-TAR, and none died intraoperatively. Cardiopulmonary bypass, selective cerebral perfusion, and lower-body circulatory arrest time were significantly shorter in the s-TAR group, which also had a lower incidence of prolonged ventilation and transient neurologic dysfunction. No patient in either group experienced permanent neurologic dysfunction. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and paraplegia was markedly increased in the c-TAR group; however, no such events were observed in the s-TAR group. Both perioperative blood loss and the incidence of reoperation for bleeding were significantly lower in the s-TAR group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 0% in the s-TAR group and 4.9% in the c-TAR group. The s-TAR group had significantly shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and lower total hospitalization costs. Conclusions: The s-TAR technique is a safe and effective alternative for total arch reconstruction with shorter operation time, lower rate of postoperative complications and lower total hospitalization costs compared with c-TAR.