Aortic arch redo surgery: early and mid-term outcomes in 120 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the indications, surgical extent and results of treatment, as well as determine the risk factors for adverse outcomes after redo arch surgery. METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 2022, 120 patients underwent aortic arch reoperations after primary proximal aortic surgery. We retrospectively analysed perioperative data, as well as early and mid-term outcomes in these patients. RESULTS: Indications for arch reintervention included new aortic aneurysm in 34 patients (28.3%), expanding post-dissection aneurysm in 36 (30.0%), aortic graft infection in 39 (32.5%) and new aortic dissection in 9 cases. Two patients underwent reoperation due to iatrogenic complications. Thirty-one patients (25.8%) had concomitant endocarditis. In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were 11.7% and 15.0%, respectively. Stroke was observed in 11 (9.2%) and paraplegia in 1 patient. Prior surgery due to aneurysm [odds ratio 4.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-17.3] and critical preoperative state (odds ratio 5.9; 95% CI 1.5-23.7) were independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Overall 1- and 5-year survival was 65.8 ± 8.8% and 51.2 ± 10.6%, respectively. Diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio 2.4; 95% CI 1.0-5.1) and peripheral arterial disease (hazard ratio 4.7; 95% CI 1.1-14.3) were independent predictors of late death. The cumulative incidence of reoperations was 12.6% (95% CI 6.7-20.4%) at 5 years. Accounting for mortality as a competing event, connective tissue disorders (subdistribution hazard ratio 4.5; 95% CI 1.6-15.7) and interval between primary and redo surgery (subdistribution hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.06) were independent predictors of reoperations after redo arch surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being technically demanding, aortic arch reoperations are feasible and can be performed with acceptable results.

Sex-Related Differences After Proximal Aortic Surgery: Outcome Analysis of 1773 Consecutive Patients.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines on the management of aortic aneurysm disease do not account for sex differences regarding surgical procedures on the proximal aorta, although faster aneurysm growth, increased rupture risk, and higher postoperative mortality have been found in women. We therefore analyzed outcome differences between men and women receiving operations on the proximal aorta. METHODS: A total of 1773 patients underwent nonemergency surgical procedures on the aortic valve (AV) and proximal aorta at our institution between 2000 and 2018. Of these, 772 patients (21.8% women) received a Bentall procedure, 349 (20.3% women) had AV-sparing root replacement, and 652 (31.1% women) underwent AV and supracommissural ascending aorta replacement. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and midterm survival. RESULTS: When assessing sex-related differences within the entire group of patients that received an operation on the proximal aorta, women were found to be older, had a lower body mass index, and were smokers less often. Despite shorter procedural times, median ventilation times and intensive care unit length of stay were longer in women. In-house mortality was also higher in women (3.6% vs 0.9%, P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed age (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3 per 5 years added; P < .001), female sex (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.8; P = .02), and urgent surgery (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.2-7.3; P = .01) as independent risk factors for in-house death. Midterm survival was lower for women in the entire cohort (P = .02) and particularly within the Bentall subgroup (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Female sex is an independent risk factor for operative mortality in patients undergoing proximal aortic surgery but is currently not addressed in guidelines. More research should focus on etiology and prevention of these worse outcomes in female patients.

Aortic root replacement in bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve patients.

Background: Concomitant replacement of the aortic root and aortic valve is a widely used treatment strategy in elective patients with aortic valve stenosis and root aneurysm. It is also a strategy frequently employed in patients with acute aortic dissection type A (AADA), involving the aortic root. Although more patients have undergone valve sparing procedures over the past decades, the classic 'modified Bentall technique' remains a valid option, particularly for patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). We aimed to compare the results of elective and emergency modified Bentall procedures in patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our database for patients undergoing either elective or emergency modified Bentall procedures between 2000 and 2018 and identified 827 elective cases (44% BAV) and 258 emergency cases (15% BAV). Analysis of intra- and postoperative outcomes and early mortality was performed. Due to inequality of the groups, a matching analysis was performed. Results: We found BAV patients to be significantly younger (elective: 58±18 vs. 65±14, P<0.001; emergency: 49±17 vs. 62±19, P<0.001) and healthier at time of surgery. In the AADA cohort, malperfusion rate was not different between bicuspid and tricuspid patients, however bicuspid AADA patients presented more often with an entry in the aortic root. After matching, procedure times and early outcomes did not differ between the groups, except for significantly higher rates of respiratory failure in elective TAV patients (10% vs. 5%, P=0.033). The 30-day mortality was 2% in elective cases and 22% in emergency AADA surgery. A subgroup analysis of elective patients with aortic diameter <55 mm also showed excellent outcomes. Conclusions: After adjustment for preoperative inequalities, no differences in early mortality and outcomes were found between bicuspid and tricuspid patients receiving elective or emergency modified Bentall surgery.

Impact of distal aortic perfusion on 'segmental steal' depleting spinal cord blood flow-a quantitative experimental approach.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic steal is an underestimated risk factor for intraoperative spinal cord ischaemia. A negative effect on spinal cord perfusion in thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair has been suspected if blood drains away from the cord initiated by a reversal of the arterial pressure gradient. The amount of blood and pressure loss via back-bleeding of segmental arteries and the impact of distal aortic perfusion (DaP) have not been analysed yet. The aim of our study was to quantify 'segmental steal' in vivo during simulated thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair and to determine the impact of DaP on steal and spinal cord perfusion. METHODS: Ten juvenile pigs were put on cardiopulmonary bypass with DaP and visceral arteries were ligated. 'Segmental steal' was quantified by draining against gravity with/without DaP. Blood volume of 'segmental steal' was quantified and microspheres were injected for Post mortem spinal cord perfusion analysis. 'Segmental steal' was quantified with/without DaP-and with stopped DaP. RESULTS: Quantification revealed a significantly higher steal on cardiopulmonary bypass with DaP with a mean difference of 24(11) ml/min. In all spinal cord segments, blood flow was diminished during steal drainage on DaP, compared to 'no steal'. The least perfused region was the low thoracic to upper lumbar segment. CONCLUSIONS: 'Segmental steal' is a relevant threat to spinal cord perfusion-even with the utilization of DaP-diminishing spinal cord perfusion. The blood volume lost by back-bleeding of segmental arteries is not to be underestimated and occlusion of segmental arteries should be considered in thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair.