Search

Objective An acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) is a critical emergency and remains one of the most challenging diseases in cardiothoracic surgery. The existence of a pericardial hematoma caused by an aortic rupture can dramatically reduce the chances of survival (Jerzewski and Kulik in J Card Surg 29(4):529–530, 2014; Mehta et al. in Circulation 105(2):200–206, 2002; Gilon et al. in Am J Cardiol 103(7):1029–1031, 2009; Isselbacher et al. in Circulation 90(5):2375–2378, 1994). We assessed the surgical outcome of a high-risk group of patients with AAAD and a pericardial hematoma. Methods In this study we included 430 Patients (67% male; median age: 64 years) who received surgical treatment between January 2000 and January 2018 at our facility for acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I. We divided the cohort in two groups: Group A consisted of high-risk patients with a pericardial hematoma (n = 162) and Group B of patients without pericardial hematoma (n = 268). Results Patients with a preoperative pericardial hematoma had a significantly higher requirement for preoperative mechanical resuscitation (A: 21%; B: 1.5%; P: P: P: 0.034). Limited aortic arch repair (proximal aortic arch replacement) was preferred in the high-risk group (A: 51.9%; B: 40.3%; P: 0.020). However, survival time was generally reduced in these patients (A: 7.5 y; B: 9.9 y). Conclusion AAAD patients with preoperative pericardial hematoma present themselves in potentially lethal conditions, with a significantly higher rate of visceral malperfusion. Despite the existence of this risk factor, a limited arch repair was favored. We have proven that cardiac compression is associated with preoperative intubation and mechanical resuscitation. Patients with pericardial hematoma must be further evaluated for preoperative pericardial drainage. In the event of long transfer times to an aortic center a slow drainage should be discussed to prevent early mortality.

Patients with Marfan syndrome are usually not suitable for endovascular repair of the thoracoabdominal aorta. This study was designed to analyze our center's experience with open surgical thoracoabdominal aortic replacement in Marfan patients.This was a retrospective study with prospective follow-up. Between January 1995 and September 2021, a total of 648 patients underwent thoracoabdominal aortic replacement at our center. Of these, 60 had Marfan syndrome and were included in this study.The mean age was 39.5 ± 10.7 years, and 36 (60%) were male. Ten (17%) had aortic aneurysm, 4 (7%) acute/subacute dissection, and 46 (77%) chronic dissection. Patients presented with the following extent of aortic disease according to the Crawford classification: I-17 (28%), II-18 (30%), III-22 (37%), IV-2 (3%), and V-1 (2%). The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 173.9 ± 84.7 minutes. Four (7%) patients required stent graft extraction. Postoperatively, 5 (8%) patients required rethoracotomy and 6 (10%) tracheostomy. One (1.7%) patient had permanent paraplegia and 2 (3%) permanent paraparesis. Two (3%) patients had stroke. One (1.7%) patient was discharged with dialysis. The 30-day mortality was 3% (n = 2). Median follow-up time was 21.5 (range, 9.4-33.6) years. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rate was 87%, 80%, and 68%, respectively. There were 16 aortic reinterventions in 9 patients during follow-up.Thoracoabdominal aortic replacement remains a complex procedure but can be done extremely safely in Marfan patients. Perioperative mortality rates are very low, and the long-term outcomes are enduring. Because endovascular aortic repair is not recommended for patients with connective tissue disease, open surgery remains an important cornerstone of therapy.

We present our 25-year experience with valve-sparing aortic root replacement using a straight tube graft (David-I).From 1993 to 2019, 677 patients (median age, 56.0 years; range, 42-65) underwent the David-I procedure with a straight tube graft. A total of 24 different surgeons performed these operations. Marfan syndrome was present in 111 patients (16.4%), and bicuspid aortic valve was present in 71 patients (10.5%). Aortic root aneurysm was present in 544 patients (80.4%), and acute dissection was present in 133 patients (19.6%).Ministernotomy was used in 57 patients (8.4%). Additional cusp plasty was performed in 84 patients (12.4%). Concomitant procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 122, 18.0%), mitral valve surgery (n = 34, 5%), proximal arch replacement (n = 125, 18.4%), subtotal arch replacement (n = 43, 6.4%), and total arch replacement (n = 102, 15.1%). Overall in-hospital mortality was 4.0% (n = 27), and perioperative stroke occurred in 26 patients (3.8%). Postoperative echocardiography showed aortic insufficiency less than I° in 600 of 623 (96.3%). The 1-, 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year survivals were 97%, 92%, 79%, 68%, and 50%, respectively. The rates for freedom from aortic valve-related reoperation at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were 97%, 92%, 87%, 84%, and 80%, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified age (odds ratio, 0.974; 95% confidence interval, 0.957-0.992; P = .004), senior surgeon (odds ratio, 0.546; 95% confidence interval, 0.305-0.979; P = .042), and residual postoperative aortic insufficiency (odds ratio, 4.864; 95% confidence interval, 1.124-21.052; P = .034) as independent risk factors for aortic valve-related reoperation.The aortic valve-sparing David-I procedure can be performed with very low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The short- and long-term results are excellent. The straight tube graft does not lead to increased leaflet erosion. This procedure is reproducible by multiple surgeons.

OBJECTIVES Aortic valve-sparing root reimplantation (AVSRR) is a complex procedure, which offers the benefit of preserving the native aortic valve. Cardiac redo surgery is complex and time-consuming, and it is not known if David procedure is safe or beneficial in this context. METHODS Between 1993 and 2019, we performed a total of 544 elective AVSRR operations at our centre. Patients were assigned to either group A (n = 30, redo) or group B (n = 514, first-time sternotomy). RESULTS Aortic cross-clamp time was higher in the redo group (173[62] vs 125[31], P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was higher in the redo group as well (250[78] vs 179[51], P < 0.001). There were significantly more concomitant total arch replacements in the redo group (43.3% vs 5.8%, P < 0.001) using the ‘beating heart’ technique (20.0% vs 1.9%, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was comparable in both groups (3.3% vs 1.8%, P = 0.44). The rates for perioperative complications in terms of permanent neurological deficit and rethoracotomy were comparable between the 2 groups, too. Follow-up was complete for 99.6% of all patients and comprised a total of 584 patient-years. The 1-, 5-, 10- and 15-year survival rates were 90%, 81%, 60% and 55%, in group A (redo) and 96%, 90%, 78% and 67% in group B (native, P = 0.16), respectively. The rates for freedom from valve-related reoperation at 1, 5, 10 and 15 years after initial surgery were 96%, 92%, 92% and 92% in group A (redo) and 97%, 92%, 87% and 84% in group B (native, P = 0.52), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Despite significantly more concomitant total arch replacements in the redo group, early mortality was comparable in both groups. We conclude that AVSRR can be performed in redo cardiac surgery without compromising the early postoperative outcome. Careful patient assessment and selection are mandatory when evaluating patients with a history of previous cardiac surgery for David procedure.