Early and midterm results of frozen elephant trunk operation with Evita open stent-graft in patients with Marfan syndrome: results of a multicentre study

Background: Endovascular treatment of patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) is not recommended. Hybrid procedures such as frozen elephant trunk (FET), which combines stent-graft deployment with an integrated non-stented fabric graft for proximal grafting and suturing, have not been previously evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of FET operation in patients with MFS. Methods: Patients enrolled in the International E-vita Open Registry (IEOR) who underwent FET procedure between January 2001 and February 2020 meeting Ghent criteria for MFS were included in the study. Early and midterm results were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative, postoperative and follow-up computed tomography angiography scans were analysed. Results: We analyzed 37 patients [mean age 38 ± 11 years, 65% men]. Acute or chronic aortic dissection was present in 35 (95%) patients (14 and 21 patients respectively). Two (5%) patients had an aneurysm without dissection. Malperfusion syndrome was present in 4 patients. Twenty-nine (78%) patients had history of aortic surgical interventions. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality amounted to 8 and 14% respectively. False lumen exclusion was present in 73% in stented segment in last postoperative CT. The overall 5-year survival was 71% and freedom from reintervention downstream was 58% at 5 years. Of the nine patients who required reintervention for distal aortic disease, one patient died. Conclusions: FET operation for patients with MFS can be performed with acceptable mortality and morbidity. In long-term follow-up no reinterventions on the aortic arch were required. FET allows for easier second stage operations providing platform for surgical and endovascular reinterventions

Should intentional endovascular stent-graft coverage of the left subclavian artery be preceded by prophylactic revascularisation?

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a promising therapeutic alternative to conventional open aortic replacement but it requires suitable proximal and distal landing zones for stent-graft anchoring. Many aortic pathologies affect in the immediate proximity of the left subclavian artery (LSA) limiting the proximal landing zone site without proximal vessel coverage. In patients in whom the distance between the LSA and aortic lesion is too short, extension of the landing zone can be obtained by covering the LSA's origin with the endovascular stent graft (ESG). This manoeuvre has the potential for immediate and delayed neurological and vascular symptoms. Some authors, therefore, propose prophylactic revascularisation of the LSA by transposition or bypass, while others suggest prophylactic revascularisation only under certain conditions, and still others see no requirement for prophylactic revascularisation in anticipation of LSA ostium coverage. In this review about LSA revascularisation in TEVAR patients with coverage of the LSA, we searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE historically until the end date of May 2010 with the search terms left subclavian artery, covering, endovascular, revascularisation and thoracic aorta. We have gathered the most complete scientific evidence available used to support the various concepts to deal with this issue. After a review of the current available literature, 23 relevant articles were found, where we have identified and analysed three basic treatment concepts for LSA revascularisation in TEVAR patients (prophylactic, conditional prophylactic and no prophylactic LSA revascularisation). The available evidence supports prophylactic revascularisation of the LSA before ESG LSA coverage when preoperative imaging reveals abnormal supra-aortic vascular anatomy or pathology. We further conclude that elective patients undergoing planned coverage of the LSA during TEVAR should receive prophylactic LSA transposition or LSA-to-left-common-carotid-artery (LCCA) bypass surgery to prevent severe neurological complications, such as paraplegia or brain stem infarctio

Sutureless versus conventional bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement in severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis

Objective: Sutureless aortic valves are a novel option for aortic valve replacement. We sought to demonstrate noninferiority of sutureless versus standard bioprostheses in severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Methods: The Perceval Sutureless Implant Versus Standard-Aortic Valve Replacement is a prospective, randomized, adaptive, open-label trial. Patients were randomized (March 2016 to September 2018) to aortic valve replacement with a sutureless or stented valve using conventional or minimally invasive approach. Primary outcome was freedom from major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention) at 1 year. Results: At 47 centers (12 countries), 910 patients were randomized to sutureless (n = 453) or conventional stented (n = 457) valves; mean ages were 75.4 ± 5.6 and 75.0 ± 6.1 years, and 50.1% and 44.9% were female, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores were 2.4 ± 1.7 and 2.1 ± 1.3, and a ministernotomy approach was used in 50.4% and 47.3%, respectively. Concomitant procedures were performed with similar rates in both groups. Noninferiority was demonstrated for major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year, whereas aortic valve hemodynamics improved equally in both groups. Use of sutureless valves significantly reduced surgical times (mean extracorporeal circulation times: 71.0 ± 34.1 minutes vs 87.8 ± 33.9 minutes; mean crossclamp times: 48.5 ± 24.7 vs 65.2 ± 23.6; both P <.0001), but resulted in a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11.1% vs 3.6% at 1 year). Incidences of perivalvular and central leak were similar. Conclusions: Sutureless valves were noninferior to stented valves with respect to major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events at 1 year in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (alone or with coronary artery bypass grafting). This suggests that sutureless valves should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve program