Duration of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest for aortic arch surgery: is it a myth, fiction, or scientific leap?

INTRODUCTION: The use of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) to provide aortic surgeons with a bloodless operative field while simultaneously protecting the brain and peripheries from ischemic damage revolutionized cardiac and aortic surgery, and is currently used in specialist centers across the globe. However, it is associated with manifold adverse outcomes, including neurocognitive dysfunction and mortality. This review seeks to analyze the relationship between DHCA duration and clinical outcome, and evaluate the controversies and limitations surrounding its use. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a review of available literature with statistical analysis to evaluate the relationship between DHCA duration (<40 min and >40 min) and key clinical outcomes, including mortality, permanent and temporary neurological deficit, renal damage, admission length, and reintervention rate. The controversies surrounding DHCA use and future directions for care are also explored. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Statistical analysis revealed no significant association (P>0.05) between DHCA duration and clinical outcomes (early and late mortality rates, neurological deficit, admission length, and reintervention rate), both with and without adjunctive perfusion techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Available literature suggests that the relationships between DHCA duration (with and without adjunctive perfusion) and clinical outcomes are unclear, and at present not statistically significant. Alternative surgical and endovascular techniques have been identified as promising novel approaches not requiring DHCA, as have the use of biomarkers to enable early diagnosis and intervention for aortic pathologies.

Criteria for endovascular intervention in type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for the management of uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) remains controversial. There is a lack of consensus over whether pre-emptive TEVAR should be carried out in patients with un-TBAD at risk of progression to complicated TBAD. We present a review of current evidence and seek to suggest criteria where endovascular intervention in un-TBAD may prove beneficial relative to pharmacotherapy alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched using terms including: type B aortic dissection, risk factors, medical therapy, TEVAR, false lumen (FL) expansion, and mortality. Papers were selected based on title and abstract. RESULTS: Optimal medical therapy remains the mainstay treatment for patients with un-TBAD, however, patients with un-TBAD present with varying degrees of disease progression risk. Factors such as age, aortic morphology, history of connective tissue disorders, FL thrombosis, and aortic branch involvement may potentiate progression from un-TBAD to complicated TBAD. Short- and long-term outcomes associated with TEVAR for TBAD remain promising. CONCLUSION: Pre-emptive TEVAR may be beneficial in patients with un-TBAD presenting with the above factors, however, further prospective research into the optimal timing for TEVAR in un-TBAD is required.