Post-mortem examination of fatal acute type A aortic dissection: what does it teach us?

OBJECTIVES: Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) remains a highly life-threatening condition. This study investigates factors associated with fatal ATAAD prior to surgical treatment. METHODS: We reviewed autopsy reports of ATAAD decedents who died before surgical intervention and underwent postmortem examination at our clinic from 1994 to 2022. RESULTS: Among 94 eligible cases, 50 (53.2%) decedents had DeBakey type I dissection, and 44 (46.8%) had DeBakey type II dissection. Most were males, 63 (67%), and 72 (77%) had a history of hypertension. The median age was 70.5 years, and the type II group was a decade older than the type I group (P < 0.001). Decedents in the type II group predominantly died during the first hour after symptoms onset 16 (52%), while in the type I group, fatalities occurred between 1 h and 1 day, 27 (66%). The most common site of the intimal tear was the midportion of the ascending aorta, 45 (48%). The median ascending aorta size was 5 cm for the entire cohort, 5.2 cm for type I and 4.6 cm for type II (P < 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: In this autopsy study of fatal acute aortic dissection, the median aortic size was below the current guideline threshold for elective repair. Type II acute aortic dissections were found more frequently than expected and were characterized by older age, advanced aortic atherosclerosis, smaller aortic size, a shorter interval from symptom onset to death and a higher frequency of syncope compared to type I dissection.

Randomized controlled trial between conventional versus sutureless bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement: Impact of mini and full sternotomy access at 1-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The present study is a sub-analysis of the multicenter, randomized PERSIST-AVR trial (PERceval Sutureless Implant versus Standard Aortic Valve Replacement) comparing the in-hospital and 1-year results of sutureless versus conventional stented bioprostheses in isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) within two different surgical approaches: mini-sternotomy (MS) and full-sternotomy (FS). METHODS: A total of 819 patients (per-protocol population) underwent preoperative randomization to sutureless or stented biological valve at 47 centers worldwide. Sub-analysis on isolated SAVR was performed. Results were compared between sutureless and stented within the two different surgical approaches. RESULTS: 285 patients were implanted with Perceval (67% in MS) and 293 with stented valves (65% in MS). Sutureless group showed significantly reduced surgical times both in FS and MS. In-hospital results show no differences between Perceval and stented valves in FS, while a lower incidence of new-onset of atrial fibrillation (3.7% vs 10.8%) with Perceval in MS. After 1-year, use of sutureless valve showed a significant reduction of MACCE (5.2% vs 10.8%), stroke rate (1.0% vs 5.4%), new-onset of atrial fibrillation (4.2% vs 11.4%) and re-hospitalizations (21.8 days vs 47.6 days), compared to stented valves but presented higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11% vs 1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless bioprosthesis showed significantly reduced procedural times during isolated SAVR in both surgical approaches. Patients with sutureless valves and MS access showed also better 1-year outcome regarding MACCEs, stroke, re-hospitalization and new-onset atrial fibrillation, but presented a higher rate of permanent pacemaker implantation compared to patients with stented bioprosthesis.

Hemodynamic Performance of Sutureless vs. Conventional Bioprostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: The 1-Year Core-Lab Results of the Randomized PERSIST-AVR Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Sutureless aortic valves are an effective option for aortic valve replacement (AVR) showing non-inferiority to standard stented aortic valves for major cardiovascular and cerebral events at 1-year. We report the 1-year hemodynamic performance of the sutureless prostheses compared with standard aortic valves, assessed by a dedicated echocardiographic core lab. METHODS: Perceval Sutureless Implant vs. Standard Aortic Valve Replacement (PERSIST-AVR) is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients undergoing AVR, as an isolated or combined procedure, were randomized to receive a sutureless [sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR)] (n = 407) or a stented sutured [surgical AVR (SAVR)] (n = 412) bioprostheses. Site-reported echocardiographic examinations were collected at 1 year. In addition, a subgroup of the trial population (Su-AVR n = 71, SAVR = 82) had a complete echocardiographic examination independently assessed by a Core Lab (MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington D.C., USA) for the evaluation of the hemodynamic performance. RESULTS: The site-reported hemodynamic data of stented valves and sutureless valves are stable and comparable during follow-up, showing stable reduction of mean and peak pressure gradients through one-year follow-up (mean: 12.1 ± 6.2 vs. 11.5 ± 4.6 mmHg; peak: 21.3 ± 11.4 vs. 22.0 ± 8.9 mmHg). These results at 1-year are confirmed in the subgroup by the core-lab assessed echocardiogram with an average mean and peak gradient of 12.8 ± 5.7 and 21.5 ± 9.1 mmHg for Su-AVR, and 13.4 ± 7.7 and 23.0 ± 13.0 mmHg for SAVR. The valve effective orifice area was 1.3 ± 0.4 and 1.4 ± 0.4 cm2 at 1-year for Su-AVR and SAVR. These improvements are observed across all valve sizes. At 1-year evaluation, 91.3% (n = 42) of patients in Su-AVR and 82.3% in SAVR (n = 51) groups were free from paravalvular leak (PVL). The rate of mild PVL was 4.3% (n = 2) in Su-AVR and 12.9% (n = 8) in the SAVR group. A similar trend is observed for central leak occurrence in both core-lab assessed echo groups. CONCLUSION: At 1-year of follow-up of a PERSIST-AVR patient sub-group, the study showed comparable hemodynamic performance in the sutureless and the stented-valve groups, confirmed by independent echo core lab. Perceval sutureless prosthesis provides optimal sealing at the annulus with equivalent PVL and central regurgitation extent rates compared to sutured valves. Sutureless valves are therefore a reliable and essential technology within the modern therapeutic possibilities to treat aortic valve disease.

Pacemaker implantation after sutureless or stented valve: results from a controlled randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Sutureless aortic valves demonstrated non-inferiority to standard stented valves for major cardiovascular and cerebral events at 1 year after aortic valve replacement. We aim to assess the factors correlating with permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) in both cohorts. METHODS: PERSIST-AVR is a prospective, randomized, open-label trial. Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive a sutureless aortic valve replacement (Su-AVR) or stented sutured bioprosthesis (SAVR). Multivariable analysis was performed to identify possible independent risk factors associated with PPI. A logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the risk of PPI associated to different valve size. RESULTS: The 2 groups (Su-AVR; n = 450, SAVR n = 446) were well balanced in terms of preoperative risk factors. Early PPI rates were 10.4% in the Su-AVR group and 3.1% in the SAVR. PPI prevalence correlated with valve size XL (P = 0.0119) and preoperative conduction disturbances (P = 0.0079) in the Su-AVR group. No predictors were found in the SAVR cohort. Logistic regression analysis showed a significantly higher risk for PPI with size XL compared to each individual sutureless valve sizes [odds ratio (OR) 0.272 vs size S (95%confidence interval 0.07-0.95), 0.334 vs size M (95% CI 0,16-0; 68), 0.408 vs size L (95% CI 0,21-0.81)] but equivalent risk of PPI rates for all other combination of valve sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Su-AVR is associated with higher PPI rate as compared to SAVR. However, the increased PPI rate appears to be size-dependent with significant higher rate only for size XL. The combination of preoperative conduction disorder and a size XL can lead to a higher probability of early PPI in Su-AVR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02673697.

Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Sutureless aortic valves are a novel option for aortic valve replacement. We sought to demonstrate noninferiority of sutureless versus standard bioprostheses in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. METHODS: The Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients were randomized (March 2016 to September 2018) to aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or stented valve using conventional or minimally invasive approach. Primary outcome was freedom from major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention) at 1 year. RESULTS: At 47 centers (12 countries), 910 patients were randomized to sutureless (n = 453) or conventional stented (n = 457) valves; mean ages were 75.4 ± 5.6 and 75.0 ± 6.1 years, and 50.1% and 44.9% were female, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were 2.4 ± 1.7 and 2.1 ± 1.3, and a ministernotomy approach was used in 50.4% and 47.3%, respectively. Concomitant procedures were performed with similar rates in both groups. Noninferiority was demonstrated for major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year, whereas aortic valve hemodynamics improved equally in both groups. Use of sutureless valves significantly reduced surgical times (mean extracorporeal circulation times: 71.0 ± 34.1 minutes vs 87.8 ± 33.9 minutes; mean crossclamp times: 48.5 ± 24.7 vs 65.2 ± 23.6; both P < .0001), but resulted in a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11.1% vs 3.6% at 1 year). Incidences of perivalvular and central leak were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless valves were noninferior to stented valves with respect to major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (alone or with coronary artery bypass grafting). This suggests that sutureless valves should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program.

Minimally invasive surgery improves outcome of left ventricular assist device surgery in cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) (HVAD, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) implantation is already a widely accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure (HF) but also still considered as a rescue therapy for patients suffering from cardiogenic shock. Standard LVAD implantation techniques are often associated with high mortality rates and can result in severe complications, like bleeding or right heart failure (RHF). The aim of our study was to assess the outcome of Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) 1 patients (so called "crash and burn" patients) undergoing a LVAD implantation by standard or less invasive surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of the 1-year outcome of 32 consecutive HF patients in cardiogenic shock, who underwent LVAD implantation in our institution. A total of 32 INTERMACS 1 patients were emergently operated. Fourteen patients (group A) were operated by using the "Hannover-VAD-technique", which is widely known to be less invasive (upper hemisternotomy and a left-sided anterolateral thoracotomy). In contrast, 18 patients (group B) were implanted with LVAD by using the standard technique (full sternotomy). The primary endpoint was survival after 1 year without device-related re-operations. Secondary endpoints included combined analyses of rates of RHF, respiratory failure and bleeding during the trial period. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Survival after 1 year was higher in group A (69.7% vs. 50.0%). Technique-related adverse events (AEs) were also lower in the minimally invasive group, including a lower RHF (35.7% vs. 61.1%) and of further postoperative bleeding requiring surgery (14.3% vs. 33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: LVAD surgery in INTERMACS 1 patients is associated with remarkably good outcome considering the already very high mortality of those patients, and compared to previously reported surgical outcomes. Our study indicates that minimally invasive LVAD implantation in cardiogenic shock decreases mortality and the incidence of postoperative AEs.

Elective David I Procedure Has Excellent Long-Term Results: 20-Year Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: We present our results after elective, isolated David I procedures over the past 20 years. METHODS: Between 1993 and 2015, 197 patients (mean age 46 ± 17 years, 73% men) underwent isolated aortic valve reimplantation using straight tube grafts (David I procedure). Sixty patients (31%) had Marfan syndrome, and 24 (12%) had a bicuspid aortic valve. Twenty-four patients (12%) were operated through upper mini-sternotomy. RESULTS: There were no perioperative deaths. Stroke rate was 1% (2 of 197). Discharge echocardiography showed none to trivial aortic regurgitation (AR) in 71% (139 of 197 patients) and mild AR in 26% (51 of 197 patients). Thirty-two patients (16%) died during follow-up (9.0 ± 5.5 years after operation). One death was aortic valve related. Twenty-six patients (13%) underwent aortic valve reoperations during follow-up (5.5 ± 5.0 years after operation). Late endocarditis occurred in 2 patients (1.0%). More than trivial AR at discharge predicted a higher reoperation rate. In 144 non-reoperated survivors, echocardiography showed none to trivial AR in 56 (39%), mild AR in 53 (37%), moderate AR in 19 (6.3%), and severe AR in 4 (2.7%) of the patients after 12 ± 5.3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The valve-sparing David I procedure has excellent short- and long-term results. Erosion due to supposed leaflet contact with the straight tube graft was not observed in any patient, proving that using a straight graft has no negative impact on the leaflets. The "spared valve" (being native living tissue) seems to be more resistant to infection than prosthetic valves.

Short moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest without any adjunctive cerebral protection for surgical repair of the ascending aorta extending into the proximal aortic arch: is it safe?

INTRODUCTION: We have been using only moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) for patients with ascending aortic aneurysms extending into the proximal aortic arch if the distal anastomoses seem to be simple and easy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the early and midterm results of the use of moderate HCA without any adjunctive cerebral protection in such patients. METHODS: Between October 2000 and March 2005, 23 patients with an age range of 39 to 77 years (mean, 59.7 +/- 12.2 years) received surgical repair of the ascending aorta extending into the proximal aortic arch using HCA without any adjunctive cerebral protection. Mean circulatory arrest time was 7.5 +/- 2.0 minutes (range, 2-13 minutes), and mean core temperature at induction of the circulatory arrest was 26.7 +/- 1.4 degrees C (range, 24-30 degrees C). RESULTS: Operative mortality was 4.3% (1/23) due to unknown cause after successful extubation. Temporary neurological dysfunction was observed in only 1 patient (4.3%), and no persistent neurologic event was observed in any of the patients. One patient died 3 months after the operation due to a mediastinitis. No other cardiac or neurologic event was observed in the 21 surviving patients. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that moderate HCA at 26 degrees C to 28 degrees C without any adjunctive cerebral protection within 10 minutes is safe in selected patients.

Cerebral microembolization during antegrade selective cerebral perfusion.

BACKGROUND: This study quantified the number of intraoperative microemboli in patients undergoing aortic arch surgery using selective cerebral perfusion (SCP) in comparison with those in patients undergoing ascending aortic replacement without circulatory arrest and SCP. METHODS: A transcranial Doppler monitoring of the medial cerebral artery was performed in 15 patients undergoing proximal arch replacement with SCP (SCP group) and 15 patients undergoing replacement of the ascending aorta (control group). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the high-intensity transient signal counts between the SCP group and the control group at any phase. In the SCP group, 4.8% of microemboli occurred during cross-clamping, and only 0.6% occurred during SCP. In the control group, 4.6% occurred during cross-clamping. Most microemboli occurred after removing the cross-clamps in both groups; 92.2% in the SCP group and 92.1% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that outbreak frequency of microemboli during SCP was very low, and thus implies that the risk of embolic event that may be caused by SCP is very low.