Search

Background: Cannulation strategy in acute type A dissection (ATAD) varies widely without known gold standards. This study compared ATAD outcomes of axillary vs femoral artery cannulation in a large cohort from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD)., Methods: The study retrospectively reviewed 2145 patients from the IRAD Interventional Cohort (1996-2021) who underwent ATAD repair with axillary or femoral cannulation (axillary group: n = 1106 [52%]; femoral group: n = 1039 [48%]). End points included the following: early mortality; neurologic, respiratory, and renal complications; malperfusion; and tamponade. All outcomes are presented as axillary with respect to femoral., Results: The proportion of patients younger than 70 years in both groups was similar (n = 1577 [74%]), as were bicuspid aortic valve, Marfan syndrome, and previous dissection. Patients with femoral cannulation had slightly more aortic insufficiency (408 [55%] vs 429 [60%]; P = .058) and coronary involvement (48 [8%] vs 70 [13%]; P = .022]. Patients with axillary cannulation underwent more total aortic arch (156 [15%] vs 106 [11%]; P = .02) and valve-sparing root replacements (220 [22%] vs 112 [12%]; P < .001). More patients with femoral cannulation underwent commissural resuspension (269 [30.9%] vs 324 [35.3%]; P = .05). Valve replacement rates were not different. The mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass was longer in the femoral group (190 [149-237] minutes vs 196 [159-247] minutes; P = .037). In-hospital mortality was similar between the axillary (n = 165 [15%]) and femoral (n = 149 [14%]) groups (P = .7). Furthermore, there were no differences in stroke, visceral ischemia, tamponade, respiratory insufficiency, coma, or spinal cord ischemia., Conclusions: Axillary cannulation is associated with a more stable ATAD presentation, but it is a more extensive intervention compared with femoral cannulation. Both procedures have equivalent early mortality, stroke, tamponade, and malperfusion outcomes after statistical adjustment., (Copyright © 2024 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aortic arch pathology is relatively rare but potentially highly fatal and associated with considerable comorbidity. Operative mortality and complication rates have improved over time but remain high. In response, aortic arch surgery is one of the most rapidly evolving areas of cardiac surgery in terms of surgical volume and improved outcomes. Moreover, there has been a surge in novel devices and techniques, many of which have been developed by or codeveloped with vascular surgeons and interventional radiologists. Nevertheless, the extent of arch surgery, the choice of nadir temperature, cannulation, and perfusion strategies, and the use of open, endovascular, or hybrid options vary according to country, centre, and surgeon. In this review article, we provide a technical overview of the surgical, total endovascular, and hybrid repair options for aortic arch pathology through historical developments and contemporary results. We highlight key information for surgeons, cardiologists, and trainees to understand the management of patients with aortic arch pathology. We conclude by discussing training paradigms, the role of aortic teams, and gaps in knowledge, arguing for the need for wire skills for the future "interventional aortic surgeon" and increased research into techniques and novel devices to continue improving outcomes for aortic arch surgery., (Copyright © 2023 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) has excellent outcomes when performed in experienced centers in well-selected patients. It is suggested that reimplantation of the aortic valve may have better durability than remodeling in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS), although long-term comparative data are limited., Methods: Between 1988 and 2018, 194 patients with MFS underwent VSRR at our institution. From these, we derived a propensity-matched cohort of 68 patients (44 who underwent reimplantation and 24 who had remodeling). Early outcomes included death and perioperative complications. Late outcomes were survival, probability of aortic insufficiency, and reintervention up to 20 years of follow-up. Median follow-up was 17.8 years (interquartile range, 12.0-20.6 years) for the entire matched cohort., Results: Baseline variables were similar between reimplantation and remodeling patients after matching: age (39 ± 12 vs 40 ± 13 years, P = .75) and male sex (28 [64%] vs 15 [63%], P = 1.0). Similar 20-year survival was observed after reimplantation compared with remodeling (82% vs 72%, P = .20), whereas the probability of developing greater than mild aortic insufficiency at 20 years was increased after remodeling (5.8% vs 13%, P = .013). More patients underwent reoperation on the aortic valve after a remodeling procedure than after reimplantation of the aortic valve (18% vs 0%, P = .018)., Conclusions: VSRR provides excellent long-term survival and freedom from valve-related complications outcomes in patients with MFS. Reimplantation of the aortic valve was associated with a lower risk of aortic valve reoperation and aortic insufficiency than the remodeling procedure after 2 decades of follow-up., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Observed sex differences in COVID-19 outcomes suggest that men are more likely to experience critical illness and mortality. Thrombosis is common in severe COVID-19, and D-dimer is a significant marker for COVID-19 severity and mortality. It is unclear whether D-dimer levels differ between men and women, and the effect of D-dimer levels on disease outcomes remains under investigation., Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the sex difference in the D-dimer level among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and the effect of sex and D-dimer level on disease outcomes., Methods: We meta-analyzed articles reporting D-dimer levels in men and women hospitalized for COVID-19, until October 2021, using random effects. Primary outcomes were mortality, critical illness, and thrombotic complications., Results: In total, 11,682 patients from 10 studies were analyzed ( N  = 5606 men (55.7%), N  = 5176 women (44.3%)). Men had significantly higher odds of experiencing mortality (odds ratios (OR) = 1.41, 95% CI: [1.25, 1.59], P ≤ .001, I 2  = 0%) and critical illness (OR = 1.76, 95% CI: [1.43, 2.18], P ≤ .001, I 2  = 61%). The mean D-dimer level was not significantly different between men and women (MD = 0.08, 95% CI: [-0.23, 0.40], P  = .61, I 2  = 52%). In the subgroup analysis, men had significantly higher odds of experiencing critical illness compared with women in both the "higher" ( P  = .006) and "lower" ( P  = .001) D-dimer subgroups., Conclusion: Men have significantly increased odds of experiencing poor COVID-19 outcomes compared with women. No sex difference was found in the D-dimer level between men and women with COVID-19. The diversity in D-dimer reporting impacts data interpretation and requires further attention., (Crown Copyright © 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation via lateral thoracotomy can offer similar effectiveness to conventional approaches with less perioperative adverse events. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the potential benefits of lateral thoracotomy (LT) for LVAD implantation compared to median sternotomy., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for studies comparing continuous-flow LVAD implantation using LT with conventional sternotomy. Main outcomes were perioperative mortality and complications., Results: Twenty-five observational studies enrolling 3072 patients were included with a median follow-up of 10 months. Perioperative mortality (30 day or in-hospital) was 7% (LT) and 14% (sternotomy); however, mortality differences were no longer statistically significant in matched/adjusted studies (RR:0.86; 95%CI:0.52-1.44; p = 0.58). LT was associated with decreased need for blood product transfusions (mean difference[MD]: -4.7; 95%CI: -7.2 to -2.3 units; p < 0.001), reoperation for bleeding (RR:0.34; 95%CI:0.22-0.54; p < 0.001), postoperative RVAD implantation (RR:0.53; 95%CI:0.36-0.77; p < 0.001), days requiring inotropes (MD: -1.1; 95%CI: -2.1 to -0.03 inotrope days; p = 0.04), ICU (MD: -3.3; 95%CI: -6.0 to -0.7 ICU days; p = 0.01), and hospital length of stay (MD: -5.1; 95%CI: -10.1 to -0.1 hospital days; p = 0.04) in matched/adjusted studies. Overall mortality during follow-up was significantly lower for LT in unmatched/unadjusted studies but not statistically significantly lower in matched/adjusted studies (Hazard Ratio:0.82; 95%CI:0.59-1.14; p = 0.24)., Conclusion: LVAD implantation via LT was associated with significantly decreased need for blood products, reoperation for bleeding, and postoperative RVAD implantation. Furthermore, days on inotropic support were also lower, likely contributing to the shorter length of stay. These findings support greater use of a LT approach for carefully selected patients., (Copyright © 2022 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

North America is facing an opioid epidemic and growing illicit drug supply, contributing to growing numbers of injection drug use-related infective endocarditis (IDU-IE). Patients with IDU-IE have high early and late mortality. Patients with IDU-IE more commonly present with right-side IE compared with those with non-IDU IE, and a majority are a result of Streptococcus aureus. Although most patients can be successfully managed with intravenous antibiotic treatment, surgery is often required in part owing to high relapse rates, potential treatment biases, and more aggressive pathophysiology in some. Multidisciplinary management as endocarditis teams, including not only cardiologists and cardiac surgeons, but also infectious disease specialists, drug addiction experts, social workers, neurologists, and neurosurgeons, is essential to best manage substance use disorder and facilitate safe discharge to home and society. Structural and population-level interventions, such as harm-reduction programs, are necessary to reduce IDU-IE relapse rates in the community and other IDU-related health concerns, such as overdoses. In this review, we describe the pathophysiologic, clinical, surgical, social, and ethical characteristics of IDU-IE and their management. We present the most recent clinical guidelines for this condition and discuss existing gaps in knowledge to guide future research, practice changes, and policy interventions., (Copyright © 2022 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis (IDU-IE) is a growing epidemic. The objective of this survey was to identify the beliefs and practice patterns of Canadian cardiac surgeons regarding surgical management of IDU-IE., Methods: A 30-question survey was developed by a working group and distributed to all practicing adult cardiac surgeons in Canada. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: Of 146 surgeons, 94 completed the survey (64%). Half of surgeons (49%) would be less likely to operate on patients with IE if associated with IDU. In the case of prosthetic valve IE owing to continued IDU, 36% were willing to reoperate once and 14% were willing to reoperate twice or more. Most surgeons required commitments from patients before surgery (73%), and most referred patients to addiction services (81%). Some surgeons would offer a Ross procedure (10%) or homograft (8%) for aortic valve IE, and 47% would consider temporary mechanical circulatory support. Whereas only 17% of surgeons worked at an institution with an endocarditis team, 71% agreed that there was a need for one at each institution. Most surgeons supported the development of IDU-IE-specific guidelines (80%)., Conclusions: Practice patterns and surgical management of IDU-IE vary considerably across Canada. Areas of clinical unmet needs include the development of a formal addiction services referral protocol for patients, the development of an interdisciplinary endocarditis team, as well as the creation of IDU-IE clinical practice guidelines., (Copyright © 2021 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Herein, we describe the unique interplay among biomedical ethics, principles of distributive justice, and economic theory to highlight the role of health technology assessments to compare therapeutic options for aortic valve replacement. From the perspective of the Canadian health care system, transcatheter aortic-valve implantation is associated with higher costs but also higher incremental health benefits compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. At current willingness to pay thresholds, transcatheter aortic-valve replacement is likely cost effective across the spectrum of risk, from inoperable patients to those at low surgical risk. However, we highlight the nuances within each subgroup of surgical risk that merit careful consideration by the heart team. Moreover, incorporation of patients and their preferences in decision-making is key. In particular, in young, low-risk patients, there remains uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment, with unique concerns around valve durability, selection of valve prosthesis, and consideration for special procedures such as the Ross procedure. Nonetheless, current research suggests that, universally, patients prefer a less invasive approach compared with a more invasive approach. Finally, we highlight that there remain critical issues around timeliness of access to care and unacceptable geographic inequities across Canada. Further research into alternative funding mechanisms and integrated cross-sector care pathways is necessary to address these issues., (Copyright © 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aortic valve-sparing operations theoretically have fewer stroke and bleeding complications but may increase late reoperation risk versus composite valve grafts., Methods: We meta-analyzed all studies comparing aortic valve-sparing (reimplantation and remodelling) and composite valve-grafting (bioprosthetic and mechanical) procedures. Early outcomes were all-cause mortality, reoperation for bleeding, myocardial infarction, and thromboembolism/stroke. Long-term outcomes included all-cause mortality, reintervention, bleeding, and thromboembolism/stroke. Studies exclusively investigating dissection or pediatric populations were excluded., Results: A total of 3794 patients who underwent composite valve grafting and 2424 who underwent aortic valve-sparing procedures were included from 9 adjusted and 17 unadjusted observational studies. Mean follow-up was 5.8 ± 3.0 years. Aortic valve sparing was not associated with any difference in early mortality, bleeding, myocardial infarction, or thromboembolic complications. Late mortality was significantly lower after valve sparing (incident risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.87; P < .01). Late thromboembolism/stroke (incident rate ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.22-0.60; P < .01) and bleeding (incident rate ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.42; P < .01) risks were lower after valve sparing. Procedure type did not affect late reintervention., Conclusions: Aortic valve sparing appears to be safe and associated with reduced late mortality, thromboembolism/stroke, and bleeding compared with composite valve grafting. Late durability is equivalent. Aortic valve sparing should be considered in patients with favorable aortic valve morphology., (Copyright © 2020 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the early results of endovascular vs open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair., Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies from January 2006 to March 2018 that compared endovascular vs open repair of TAAA using branched or fenestrated endografts. Data were subjected to a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The outcomes of interest included early mortality, spinal cord injury, renal failure requiring dialysis, stroke, and hospital length of stay., Results: Eight comparative studies met inclusion criteria. There were two retrospective propensity-matched studies, two unadjusted single-center retrospective studies, and four unadjusted national population-based studies. Mortality in the matched studies was equivalent in both groups. Pooled analysis of all unmatched observational studies revealed a survival benefit for endovascular over open repair (relative risk [RR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI],0.45-0.87); P < .01, I 2  = 47%). Endovascular repair was also associated with lower incidence of spinal cord injury (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P = .05; I 2  = 28%). For unmatched studies, pooled RR of renal failure requiring dialysis significantly favored endovascular repair (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85; P = .01; I 2  = 0%), although in the adjusted cohort, risk of dialysis was not different (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.06-15.65; P = 1.00). Postoperative stroke rate was reported in three unadjusted studies and was not different between groups (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.28-2.40; P = .71; I 2  = 77%). Hospital length of stay was reported in four studies and was shorter in the endovascular group (mean difference, -4.4 days; 95% CI, -6.6 to -1.7; P < .01; I 2  = 73%)., Conclusions: There are few reports comparing endovascular vs open repair of TAAAs. Short-term outcomes may be improved in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of TAAA on the basis of a limited number of studies with high risk of bias. These findings highlight the need for larger comparative studies with standardization of reporting., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This meta-analysis compares the early and late outcomes of valve repair versus replacement, the primary surgical strategies for tricuspid valve infective endocarditis (IE)., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until 2016 for studies comparing tricuspid valve repair and replacement., Results: The main outcomes were mortality, recurrent IE, and need for reoperation. There were 12 unmatched retrospective observational studies with 1,165 patients (median follow-up 3.8 years, interquartile range: 2.1 to 5.0). The most common indications for surgery were septic pulmonary embolism, left-sided IE, right-side heart failure, and persistent bacteremia. Median repair proportion was 59% and replacement was 41% among studies. The primary repair strategies are vegetectomy, De Vega procedure, annuloplasty ring, bicuspidization, and leaflet patch augmentation. Of valve replacements, 83% were bioprosthetic and 17% mechanical prostheses. There were no differences in perioperative mortality between tricuspid valve repair versus replacement (relative risk [RR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26 to 1.46, p = 0.3). Long-term all-cause mortality was not different (RR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.72, p = 0.4). Valve repair was associated with lower recurrent IE (RR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.57, p = 0.004) and need for reoperation (RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.92, p = 0.04) but a trend toward greater risk of moderate to severe tricuspid regurgitation (RR 4.14, 95% CI: 0.80 to 21.34, p = 0.09). Furthermore, tricuspid valve repair is associated with lower need for permanent pacemaker (RR 0.20, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.35, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Tricuspid valve repair and replacement offer similar long-term survival. Valve repair may offer greater freedom from recurrent IE and reoperation as well as freedom from pacemaker and should be the preferred approach for patients with tricuspid valve IE., (Copyright © 2018 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)