Is the classical elephant trunk better than the frozen elephant trunk?

Aortic diseases located in the ascending aorta, aortic arch or proximal descending aorta often require more than one surgical intervention depending on the type of pathology and its extent as well as future anticipated aortic problems. These obstacles were tackled in 1983 by Hans Borst with the introduction of the classic elephant trunk (cET). This was an outstanding and straightforward procedure. Since then, the cET was very often the first surgical approach for patients with extensive aortic pathology of the ascending aorta and arch extending into the downstream aorta. Thirteen years later, Suto and Kato introduced the frozen elephant trunk (fET) which was later on perfectionized by industry and applied in various ways by many surgical groups worldwide. Comparing the cET with the fET raises a lot of difficulties. The lack of randomization and the presence of procedural and complication-related limitations for each technique do not allow for definitive conclusions about the ideal procedure to treat complex aortic pathology. It would be very short-sighted to close all future discussions about the subject with this statement of the Hannover group made in 2011. Since both techniques and its results cannot be compared statistically due to the heterogeneity of patient groups, the lack of randomization, the difference in type and extent of pathology, the differences in surgical techniques, the learning curve in gaining experience in both techniques, and the lack of reporting standards, no scientific conclusion can be drawn as to which technique is most successful. Comparisons may even be considered futile. It is the purpose of this paper merely to make a descriptive observation of both techniques, to discuss some important elements of interest and to give some constructive and useful criticism.

Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial of Isolated Lung Perfusion in Patients With Lung Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Up to 66% of patients show local pulmonary disease progression after pulmonary metastasectomy. Regional treatment with isolated lung perfusion (ILuP) may improve local control with minimal systemic adverse effects. The aims of this study were to evaluate local and distant control after ILuP, determine the effect on overall survival compared with historical controls, and confirm the safety and feasibility of ILuP. METHODS: A total of 107 patients with resectable pulmonary metastases of colorectal carcinoma, osteosarcoma, and soft-tissue sarcoma were included in a prospective phase II study of pulmonary metastasectomy combined with ILuP with 45 mg melphalan at 37°C. Local and distant control, overall survival, lung function, and 90-day mortality and morbidity were monitored. RESULTS: We report 0% mortality, low morbidity, and no long-term pulmonary toxicity. For colorectal carcinoma, median time to local pulmonary progression, median time to progression, and median survival time were 31, 14, and 78 months, respectively. Median time to local progression was not reached for sarcoma, whereas median time to progression and median survival time were 13 and 39 months, respectively. The 5-year disease-free rate and pulmonary progression-free rate were 26% and 44% for colorectal carcinoma and 29% and 63% for sarcoma, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ILuP with melphalan combined with metastasectomy is feasible and safe. Compared with historical controls, favorable results were obtained in this phase II study for local control. Further evaluation of locoregional lung perfusion techniques with other chemotherapeutic drugs is warranted.

Effect of intracoronary adenosine infusion during coronary intervention on myocardial reperfusion injury in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Despite early recanalization of an occluded infarct artery, up to 33% of patients with acute myocardial infarction do not obtain complete myocardial reperfusion due to a process of reperfusion injury. This study assessed whether adjunctive therapy with adenosine might prevent or attenuate the phenomenon of myocardial reperfusion injury. Myocardial reperfusion was assessed in 79 consecutive patients receiving a 20-minute intracoronary infusion of adenosine during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and in a historical cohort of 200 patients with acute myocardial infarction who were treated with PCI (controls). Myocardial reperfusion injury was defined as persistent (> or =50% of initial value) ST-segment elevation after successful recanalization. Its effect on infarct size was evaluated by calculating the Selvester QRS score before intervention and at follow-up. Myocardial reperfusion injury was present in 19% of patients receiving adenosine versus 35% of control patients (p = 0.004). Evaluation of infarct expansion over time showed almost no change in the QRS score in patients receiving adenosine (3.4 +/- 3.0 before PCI; 3.5 +/- 3.1 at follow-up). In contrast, infarct QRS score in the control group worsened from 3.1 +/- 2.7 before PCI to 4.5 +/- 3.2 at follow-up (p = 0.003 treatment with adenosine vs control). Multivariate analysis identified adjunctive therapy with adenosine as an independent protective determinant of myocardial reperfusion injury and of infarct expansion. The rate of major adverse cardiac events (death and myocardial infarction) at 1 month tended to be lower in patients receiving adenosine (4% vs 6.5%, p = 0.7) and was mainly observed in patients with evidence of myocardial reperfusion injury (cardiac event rate 2% in patients with ST-segment elevation of <50% vs 14% in patients with ST-segment elevation > or =50%, p = 0.003). Thus, impaired myocardial reperfusion is the most important determinant of clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with PCI. Adjunctive therapy with intracoronary infusion of adenosine during PCI prevents the occurrence of severe myocardial reperfusion injury and is associated with less infarct expansion.