Search

The differences in long-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis between stentless and stented bioprostheses are controversial.Between 2007 and 2018, 1173 patients underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, including 559 treated with a stentless valve and 614 with a stented valve. A propensity score matched cohort with 348 pairs was generated by matching for age, sex, body surface area, bicuspid aortic valve, chronic lung disease, previous cardiac surgery, coronary artery disease, renal failure on dialysis, valve size, concomitant procedures, and surgeon. The primary endpoints of the study were long-term survival and incidence of reoperation.Immediate postoperative outcomes were similar between the stentless and stented groups with an overall operative mortality of 2.9% (P = .19). Kaplan-Meier estimation for long-term survival was comparable between the stentless and stented valves in both the whole cohort and the propensity score matched cohort (10-year survival 59% vs 55%, P = .20). The hazard ratio of stentless vs stented valve for risk of long-term mortality was 1.12 (P = .33). The 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to valve degeneration was 5.5% in the stentless group and 4.7% in the stented group (P = .25). The transvalvular pressure gradient at 5-year follow-up was significantly lower in the stentless group (7 vs 11 mm Hg, P.001).Both stented and stentless valves could be used in aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. We recommend stented valves for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis for their simplicity of implantation.

To determine the progression of aortic root in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients after aortic root repair (ARr) or replacement (ARR) based on long-term follow-up imaging studies.From 1996 to 2019, 732 patients had ATAAD repair at our institution. Six hundred and seven of these patients had either ARr, (n = 383) or ARR (n = 224). Eighty-one patients were excluded due to a lack of postoperative imaging. Three hundred and thirty-two patients were included in the repair group and 194 patients in the replacement group for long-term follow-up imaging study.Compared to the ARR group, the ARr group was significantly older (60 years vs. 55 years) and had more patients with hypertension (79% vs. 63%) but less male patients (63% vs. 79%) and connective tissue disorder (1.8% vs 8%). The ARr group had more zone two arch replacement (22% vs. 11%), similar HCA time (35 min vs. 31 min), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (203 min vs. 266 min), aortic cross-clamp time (128 min vs. 214 min), and fewer concomitant coronary artery bypass (3.9% vs. 8.9%). The root growth rate over 12 years was similar between the repair and replacement group (0.20 mm/year vs. 0.18 mm/year, p = .75). Both the repair and replacement group had similar 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation (6.9% vs. 5.9%; p = .67), operative mortality (7.8% vs. 8.5%; p = .78), and 15-year survival (51% vs. 52%; p = .40).There was minimal growth of the aortic root after root repair or replacement for ATAAD patients. Both aortic root repair and replacement were acceptable techniques for ATAAD surgery in select patients.

Neomedia has been frequently used for aortic root repair in acute type A aortic dissection. We aimed to determine the efficacy and necessity of neomedia during acute type A aortic dissection root repair.From January 2010 to February 2021, 308 patients with acute type A aortic dissection underwent aortic root repair with neomedia (n = 132) or without neomedia (n = 176). Of these, 121 matched pairs were identified using propensity score matching based on age, sex, coronary artery disease, preoperative renal failure, acute stroke, prior cardiac surgery, cardiogenic shock, coronary malperfusion, preoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and severe aortic insufficiency.After matching, the preoperative demographics and comorbidities were well balanced in both groups. Compared with the neomedia group, the no neomedia group had less hemiarch (57% vs 69%, P = .05) and more zone 1 arch replacements (12% vs 4.1%, P = .03), shorter hypothermic circulatory arrest time (28 vs 36 minutes, P .001), and shorter crossclamp time (120 vs 131 minutes, P = .02). Postoperative outcomes were similar, and the odds ratio by univariable logistic model of no neomedia for operative mortality was 0.83 (P = .76). Aortic root growth over 11 years (0.11 vs 0.16 mm/year, P = .66), 5-year freedom from greater than mild aortic insufficiency (84% vs 85%, P = .80), reoperation for root pathology (1 patient in each group), and 8-year survival (80% [95% confidence interval, 69-97] vs 71% [95% confidence interval, 55-82], P = .26) were similar between the neomedia and no neomedia groups.In patients with acute type A aortic dissection, aortic root repair with or without neomedia was equally safe and effective. Neomedia use could be avoided in acute type A aortic dissection repair.

The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of nonsurgically managed acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) in the contemporary era.From January 1996 to December 2021, 999 patients presented with ATAAD at our institution, of whom 839 patients underwent open aortic repair (surgical cohort) whereas 148 patients were managed nonoperatively (nonsurgical cohort) because of severe comorbidities, organ failure from malperfusion syndrome, and patients' wishes. Data were obtained from chart review, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons warehouse, the national death index, and Michigan death index database.The combined in-hospital + 30-day mortality rate was 9 times higher in the nonsurgical cohort compared with the surgical cohort (70% vs 7.9%). In the nonsurgical cohort, compared with the first decade (1996-2010), patients during the second decade (2011-2021) had a lower in-hospital+30-day mortality rate (58% vs 87%; P.001); lower incidence of aortic rupture (8% vs 21%; P=.008), and a higher 3-year survival rate (29% vs 13%; P=.005). Within the nonsurgical cohort, compared with patients without malperfusion syndrome, the patients with malperfusion syndrome had similar in-hospital + 30-day mortality but a greater incidence of aortic rupture (21% vs 6.1%, P=.01) with an odds ratio of 4.2 (P=.03); compared with classic type A dissection, the patients with intramural hematoma had a lower in-hospital+30-day mortality rate (52% vs 72%, P=.02) with an odds ratio of 0.36 (P=.02).Surgery remained the mainstream treatment for ATAAD. Nonsurgical management still had a role for those who were not surgical candidates because of comorbidities or malperfusion syndrome, especially in those with acute type A intramural hematoma.

Introduction: Tunneled cuffed catheters (TCC) provides a short and intermediate-term access solution for dialysis patients who fail to get an arteriovenous fistula (AVF). They are associated with high morbidity and mortality along with high rates of infectious complications. Methods: We present a single-center prospective cohort of 159 TCCs inserted over one year. Patients were dialyzed in-hospital and in various peripheral dialysis units attached to the institute. The primary endpoint was catheter drop-out. Results: The mean age of patients was 41.8 ± 16.9 years. The right internal jugular vein was the commonest site of TCC insertion (66%). The absence of suitable veins was the predominant reason for TCC insertion. The mean time to catheter drop-out was 134.4 ± 83.3 days (5–399 days). Death with a working catheter was the most common cause of catheter drop-out (22.6%). About 25% of catheters were lost to catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), either alone or as overlap with poor flow. CRBSI rates were 3.74 episodes per 1000 catheter-days. No difference in survival between the staggered tip and split-tip catheters was found. Conclusions: With the advent of the “hub and spoke” model for dialysis in the public sector healthcare, TCCs are suboptimal with regards to patient and catheter survival, with high infection rates. It must be regarded as a temporary solution and AVF creation should be prioritized.

Transplant in COVID era is a challenging task given a paucity of data and limited experience worldwide. A 35-year-old male patient with chronic kidney disease on dialysis for the past 9 months underwent successful living-related donor transplant with his father (aged 64 years) as donor at our center. In this case, donor was diagnosed with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 during evaluation, and he was managed with supportive care and comprehensive social distancing at home. Donor was asymptomatic throughout this period. Interval from positive to negative RT-PCR for nasopharyngeal swab test was 37 days. Interval from negative RT-PCR to kidney transplant was 33 days. Later, recipient and donor were discharged with negative RT-PCR posttransplant. At 71 days of follow-up, both recipient and donor have stable kidney function with normal urinalysis. Hence, prospective donor with a history of COVID-19 infection can be taken for transplant after thorough pretransplant evaluation and having two negative RT-PCR reports after infection, normal imaging, and additional preprocedural negative RT-PCR testing.

There is debate regarding aortic arch repair extent for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) patients.From 1996 to 2021, 756 ATAAD patients underwent open arch replacement. The cohort was divided into hemiarch (n = 481), zone 1 (n = 65), zone 2 (n = 148), and zone 3 (n = 62) arch replacement groups. Cross-group comparison of aortic growth was modeled using data from interval postoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the distal aorta.Demographics were not significantly different except the hemiarch group had more coronary artery disease and less stroke. Intraoperatively, zones 1, 2, and 3 had greater cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermic circulatory arrest times and required more intraoperative blood transfusion than the hemiarch group. Perioperative outcomes were similar among groups except zone 3 had more reoperation for bleeding. Ten-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was hemiarch, 16.7%; zone 1, 16.3%; zone 2, 21.5%; and zone 3, 17.6% (P = .70). Ten-year survival was similar: hemiarch, 66%; zone 1, 60.3%; zone 2, 68.0%); and zone 3 66.1% (P = .20). Aortic arch, descending aorta, and abdominal aorta growth rates were not significantly different among groups over 10 years. In the whole cohort, the growth rate over time for aortic arch was 0.38 mm per year (P.001), descending aorta 0.84 mm per year (P.001), and abdominal aorta 0.69 mm per year (P.001).There was no significant difference in long-term survival, distal aorta growth, or reoperation rate for distal aortic aneurysm after hemiarch or zones 1, 2, or 3 arch replacement. Patient-specific arch replacement strategies may be used rather than defaulting to aggressive arch replacement for all ATAAD patients.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair is the method of choice in patients with complicated type B acute aortic dissection. However, thoracic endovascular aortic repair carries a risk of periprocedural neurological events including stroke and spinal cord ischemia. We aimed to look at procedure-related neurological complications within a large cohort of patients with type B acute aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair.Between 1996 and 2021, the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection collected data on 3783 patients with type B acute aortic dissection. For this analysis, 648 patients with type B acute aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair were included (69.4% male, mean age 62.7 ± 13.4 years). Patients were excluded who presented with a preexisting neurologic deficit or received adjunctive procedures. Demographics, clinical symptoms, and outcomes were analyzed. The primary end point was the periprocedural incidence of neurological events (defined as stroke, spinal cord ischemia, transient neurological deficit, or coma). Predictors for perioperative neurological events and follow-up outcomes were considered as secondary end points.Periprocedure neurological events were noted in 72 patients (11.1%) and included strokes (n = 29, 4.6%), spinal cord ischemias (n = 21, 3.3%), transient neurological deficits (n = 16, 2.6%), or coma (n = 6, 1.0%). The group with neurological events had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality (20.8% vs 4.3%, P .001). Patients with neurological events were more likely to be female (40.3% vs 29.3%, P = .077), and aortic rupture was more often cited as an indication for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (38.8% vs 16.5%, P .001). In patients with neurological events, more stent grafts were used (2 vs 1 stent graft, P = .002). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that aortic rupture (odds ratio, 3.12, 95% confidence interval, 1.44-6.78, P = .004) and female sex (odds ratio, 1.984, 95% confidence interval, 1.031-3.817, P = .040) were significantly associated with perioperative neurological events.In this highly selected group from dedicated aortic centers, more than 1 in 10 patients with type B acute aortic dissection treated by thoracic endovascular aortic repair had neurological events, in particular women. Further research is needed to identify the causes and presentation of these events after thoracic endovascular aortic repair, especially among women.

The study objective was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the second-generation, low-profile RelayPro (Terumo Aortic) thoracic endograft for the treatment of descending thoracic aortic aneurysm or penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer.A prospective, international, nonblinded, nonrandomized, pivotal trial analyzed a primary safety end point of major adverse events at 30 days (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal/respiratory failure, paralysis, bowel ischemia, procedural blood loss) and a primary effectiveness end point of treatment success at 1 year (technical success, patency, absence of aneurysm rupture, type I/III endoleaks, stent fractures, reinterventions, aneurysm expansion, and migration) compared with performance goals from the previous generation Relay pivotal study. The study was conducted in 36 centers in the United States and Japan and enrolled participants between 2017 and 2019.The study population of 110 patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 76 (70-81) years, 69 (62.7%) were male, and 43 (39.1%) were Asian. Patients were treated for 76 fusiform aneurysms (69%), 24 saccular aneurysms (22%), and 10 penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers (9%). Most patients (82.7%) were treated with a non-bare stent configuration. Technical success was 100%. The median (interquartile range) procedure time was 91 (64-131) minutes, and the deployment time was 16 (10-25) minutes. A total of 50 patients (73.5%) in the US cohort had percutaneous access, whereas centers in Japan used only surgical cutdown. The 30-day composite major adverse events rate was 6.4% (95% upper confidence interval, 11.6%; P = .0002): 2 strokes, 2 procedural blood losses greater than 1000 mL requiring transfusion, 2 paralysis events, and 1 renal failure. Primary effectiveness was 89.2% (lower 95% confidence interval, 81.8%; P = .0185). Nine subjects experienced 11 events (1 aneurysm expansion, 6 secondary interventions, and 4 type I endoleaks). There was no loss of stent-graft patency, no rupture, no fractures, and no migration.The low-profile RelayPro thoracic endograft met the study primary end points and demonstrated satisfactory 30-day safety and 1-year effectiveness for the treatment of patients with aneurysms of the descending thoracic aorta or penetrating atherosclerotic ulcers. Follow-up is ongoing to evaluate longer-term outcomes and durability.

Background: Operative mortality for type A aortic dissection is still 10–20% at centers of excellence. Additionally, 10–20% are not considered as viable candidates for open surgical repair and not offered life-saving emergency surgery. ARISE is a multicenter investigation evaluating the novel GORE® Ascending Stent Graft (ASG; Flagstaff, AZ). Objective: The purpose of this study is to assess early feasibility of using these investigational devices to treat ascending aortic dissection. Methods: This a prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, single-arm study that enrolls patients at high surgical risk with appropriate anatomical requirements based on computed tomography imaging at 7 of 9 US sites. Devices are delivered transfemorally under fluoroscopic guidance. Primary endpoint is all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary endpoints include major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months. Results: Nineteen patients were enrolled with a mean age of 75.7 years (range 47–91) and 11 (57.9%) were female. Ten (52.6%) had DeBakey type I disease, and the rest were type II. Sixteen (84.2%) of the patients were acute. Patients were treated with safe access, (7/19 (36.8%) percutaneous, 10/19 (52.6%) transfemoral, 2/19 (10.5%) iliac conduit), delivery, and deployment completed in all cases. Median procedure time was 154 mins (range 52–392) and median contrast used was 111 mL (range 75–200). MACCE at 30 days occurred in 5 patients including mortality 3/19 (15.8%), disabling stroke in 1/19 (5.3%), and myocardial infarction in 1/19 (5.3%). Conclusion: Results from the ARISE early feasibility study of a specific ascending stent graft device to treat ascending aortic dissection are promising.

Aims: We aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of serum cystatin C (sCyC) for contrast induced nephropathy (CIN) in Western Indians undergoing cardiac catheterization. We also aimed to propose a clinically applicable cut-off of sCyC for early identification of CIN in this ethnic group. Methods: In this prospective study, 253 patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention were enrolled. The demographic and risk factor details, levels of sCr at baseline, 24 and 48 h after the procedure, whereas baseline and 24 h levels of sCyC were noted. Increase of 0.5 mg/dl or ≥25% from baseline sCr was used to define CIN. Optimum cut off of sCyC for CIN diagnosis was obtained using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: After 48 h of contrast media (CM) exposure, the incidence of CIN was 12.25% (31 patients) according to sCr definition, where only 3.9% (10 patients) had sCr rise in 24 h. Overall significant (p

Bucket-handle meniscal tears are extremely rare injuries in the pediatric population. Given the known sequelae of meniscal tears and the development of osteoarthritis, early diagnosis and treatment of pediatric meniscal tears are essential. The communication barrier between physicians and pediatric patients, however, creates difficulties in making the correct diagnosis of meniscal pathology. Providers should have a low threshold for obtaining further confirmatory advanced imaging if patients present with prolonged knee pain and swelling, with associated locking mechanical symptoms. Good clinical outcomes following meniscal repair have been observed, likely a result of the increased residual vascularity found within pediatric menisci. The youngest reported case of an isolated traumatic bucket-handle medial meniscal tear is examined in this article. A 2-year-old girl presented with right knee pain after a heavy object fell onto the knee several weeks earlier. On examination, the patient walked with a limp but lacked full range of active knee motion. The McMurray test elicited pain without a mechanical or palpable click. After the patient continued to exhibit limitations following conservative management, magnetic resonance imaging of the right knee was obtained, which showed a bucket-handle tear of the right medial meniscus. The patient subsequently underwent meniscal repair and, on recovery, was able to regain normal functioning of the right knee without limitations. [ Orthopedics. 2018; 41(4):e580–e582.]

Objective: While squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) most commonly affects individuals in the fifth to seventh decades of life, it occasionally arises in older patients. Biologic and epidemiologic factors of HNSCC in elderly patients have been investigated to shed light on the process of neoplastic transformation in that population. Design: The medical records of patients with new onset of HNSCC presenting between 1988 and 1993 were reviewed retrospectively. Setting: Tertiary-care hospital-based clinic. Patients: Eighty-one individuals who developed HNSCC of the upper aerodigestive tract after their 75th birthday constituted the study group. A control group consisting of 102 patients who developed HNSCC between the ages of 40 and 70 years was also analyzed. Main Outcome Measure: Information about each individual's tobacco and ethanol exposure, family history of cancer, history of second primary cancer, treatment provided, and current disease status were derived from the medical record. The presence or absence of p53 gene mutation was tabulated for a subset of individuals in both the elderly and the middle-aged groups. Results: The elderly patients had a significantly lower degree of alcohol and tobacco exposure, but a significantly higher rate of second primary cancers, especially in sites outside the upper aerodigestive tract. There was no difference in the incidence of cancer in first-degree relatives in the two groups. These findings were interpreted in light of results from our laboratory examining the incidence of p53 gene mutation in a large number of patients with HNSCC. A significantly higher percentage of tumors from the younger group contained a p53 gene mutation. Major surgery was an integral part of the treatment plan for most of the older patient group despite their advanced age. Conclusions: These findings suggest that HNSCC arising after the seventh decade of life less frequently involves a genetic change commonly found in younger patients. Heavy carcinogen exposure and p53 gene mutations are present less often in elderly individuals, whereas this group appears to be more susceptible to multiple cancers. The precise biologic factors involved in neoplastic transformation in this older population await discovery. Since aggressive therapy can be successfully tolerated by many elderly patients, an individualized approach to treatment is advocated. (Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;121:262-265)

Studies have shown acute aortic dissection (AAD) pts ≥70 years of age have higher in-hospital mortality and less Type A (TA) surgical management (mgmt). These differences may also hold true within the elderly cohort. We studied 1139 elderly pts from the International Registry of Acute Aortic