Surgical treatment of acute type B aortic dissection using an endoprosthesis (elephant trunk)

Background. The surgical treatment of acute complicated type B aortic dissection continues to be a challenge and is still associated with high morbidity and mortality rates.Methods. Seventy consecutive patients with an acute type B aortic dissection underwent an elephant trunk procedure through a median sternotomy during deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. An endoprosthesis that was 22 to 24 mm in diameter was inserted through an incision in the arch and held in place with only proximal sutures.Results. The mean arrest time was 31.4 +/- 8.7 minutes, and it was possible to adequately position the endoluminal graft in every patient. The procedure was done in association with other procedures in 13 patients. There were six in-hospital deaths not related to the endoprosthesis, and four late deaths. Late reoperation was necessary in 6 patients to manage leakage at the proximal suture line.Conclusions. The insertion of an endoprosthesis through the arch for the management of a complicated acute type B dissection has several advantages over the conventional thoracotomy approach. The hospital mortality rate in this series of 70 patients was 20%, and the actuarial 5-year survival rate was 62.5%. We consider the elephant trunk procedure the treatment of choice in patients with type B acute dissections, regardless of whether the dissection is complicated or not. (C) 1997 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.ESCOLA PAULISTA MED,DIV CARDIOVASC SURG,SAO PAULO,BRAZILESCOLA PAULISTA MED,DIV CARDIOL,SAO PAULO,BRAZILESCOLA PAULISTA MED,DIV CARDIOVASC SURG,SAO PAULO,BRAZILESCOLA PAULISTA MED,DIV CARDIOL,SAO PAULO,BRAZILWeb of Scienc

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement After Surgical Repair or Replacement Comprehensive Midterm Evaluation of Valve-in-Valve and Valve-in-Ring Implantation From the VIVID Registry

Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. Methods: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient >= 10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as >= moderate. Results: A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5 +/- 12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76-996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510-1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR (P= 5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients (P=0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P= 5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74-12.56; P=0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88-21.53; P<0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. Conclusions: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored