Search

Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES Aortic valve neocuspidalization aims to replace the 3 aortic cusps with autologous pericardium pre-treated with glutaraldehyde, and it is a surgical alternative to the classical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Image-based patient-specific computational fluid dynamics allows the derivation of shear stress on the aortic wall [wall shear stress (WSS)]. Previous studies support a potential link between increased WSS and histological alterations of the aortic wall. The aim of this study is to compare the WSS of the ascending aorta in patients undergoing aortic valve neocuspidalization versus AVR with biological prostheses. METHODS This is a prospective nonrandomized clinical trial. Each patient underwent a 4D-flow cardiac magnetic resonance scan after surgery, which informed patient-specific computational fluid dynamics models to evaluate WSS at the ascending aortic wall. The adjusted variables were calculated by summing the residuals obtained from a multivariate linear model (with ejection fraction and left ventricle outflow tract-aorta angle as covariates) to the mean of the variables. RESULTS Ten patients treated with aortic valve neocuspidalization were enrolled and compared with 10 AVR patients. The aortic valve neocuspidalization group showed a significantly lower WSS in the outer curvature segments of the proximal and distal ascending aorta as compared to AVR patients (P = 0.0179 and 0.0412, respectively). WSS levels remained significantly lower along the outer curvature of the proximal aorta in the aortic valve neocuspidalization population, even after adjusting the WSS for the ejection fraction and the left ventricle outflow tract-aorta angle [2.44 Pa (2.17–3.01) vs 1.94 Pa (1.72–2.01), P = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS Aortic valve neocuspidalization hemodynamical features are potentially associated with a lower WSS in the ascending aorta as compared to commercially available bioprosthetic valves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES The European System for Cardiac Operation Risk Evaluation II (EuroSCORE II) is the most common tool used to evaluate the perioperative risk of mortality after cardiac surgery in Europe, and its use is currently recommended by the relevant guidelines. However, recently, its role has been questioned: Several papers have suggested that these algorithms may no longer be adequate for risk prediction due to an overestimation of adult cardiac surgical risk. Our goal was to validate the EuroSCORE II in the prediction of 30-day in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery in a high-volume hospital. METHODS In this retrospective cohort study, we included all patients who underwent cardiac surgery from January 2016 to May 2022 within the departments of cardiac surgery of the Monzino Cardiology Centre in Milan, Italy. We evaluated the discrimination power of the EuroSCORE II by using the receiver operating characteristic curve and the corresponding area under the curve. We performed calibration plots to assess the concordance between the model's prediction and the observed outcomes. RESULTS A total of 4,034 patients were included (mean age = 65.1 years; 68% males), of which 674 (16.7%) underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. The EuroSCORE II showed a good discrimination power in predicting 30-day in-hospital mortality (area under the curve = 0.834). However, for interventions performed in an elective setting, very low values of the EuroSCORE II overestimated the observed mortality, whereas for interventions performed in an emergency setting, EuroSCORE II values above 10 extensively underestimated the observed mortality. CONCLUSIONS Our study suggests that the EuroSCORE II seems not to be a reliable score in estimating the true risk of death, especially in high-risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]