Acute type A aortic syndromes: outcomes are independent of aortic root/valve management.

Purpose: Clinical outcomes following various surgical intervention strategies for aortic root and valve pathology during repair of acute type A aortic syndromes were studied and compared. Methods: From 2004 to 2019, 634 patients underwent acute type A aortic repair. Patients were divided into 4 groups: Valve Resuspension (n = 456), Isolated Valve Replacement (AVR) (n = 24), Valve and Root Replacement (ROOT) (n = 97), and Valve Sparing Root Replacement (VSRR) (n = 57). The primary endpoint was midterm survival and multivariable risk factor analysis was performed. Results: The mean age was 55.4 ± 13 years, 424 (67%) were male, and overall early mortality was 12%. Early mortality was 13%, 8%, 11%, and 7% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.43. Five-year survival was 74%, 86%, 73%, and 84% for the Valve Resuspension, AVR, ROOT, and VSRR groups respectively, p = 0.46. There was no difference in late stroke, renal failure, heart block, and late bleeding (p > 0.05 for all). At late follow-up, AVR and ROOT patients had a higher mean gradient versus Valve Resuspension and VSRR patients, p < 0.0001. For the total cohort, risk factors for late mortality included preoperative peripheral vascular disease (hazard ratio (HR) 2.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.4, p = 0.009) and preoperative dialysis (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3-6.1, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Mid-term survival following repair of acute type A aortic dissection is not independently associated with a specific type of aortic valve intervention. Native valve preservation leads to acceptable mid-term valve hemodynamics and should be the preferred therapy in this emergent clinical setting. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-023-01602-8.

Optimal brain protection in aortic arch surgery.

There is considerable debate with regard to the optimal cerebral protection strategy during aortic arch surgery. There are three contemporary techniques in use which include straight deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA), DHCA with retrograde cerebral perfusion (DHCA + RCP), and moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest with antegrade cerebral perfusion (MHCA + ACP). Appropriate application of these methods ensures appropriate cerebral, myocardial, and visceral protection. Each of these techniques has benefits and drawbacks and ensuring coordinated circulation management strategy is critical to safe performance of aortic arch surgery. In this report, we will review various cannulation strategies, review logistics of hypothermia, and review the relevant literature to outline the strengths and weaknesses of these various cerebral protection strategies.