Minimally invasive redo tricuspid valve replacement in patient with persistent left superior vena cava

International audienceIntroduction: The management of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is still challenging in certain circumstances, especially for patients with anatomical variations. This challenge is even harder for reoperations, which are associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk.Case report: We describe a minimally invasive, beating-heart redo tricuspid valve replacement in a 71-years old woman with persistent left superior vena cava.Discussion: Preoperative planning via CT-scan, teamwork and custom-made management of CPB are crucial for reoperations with anatomical variations. The perfusionist has a pivotal role in constructing and managing the CPB.Conclusion: We describe a strategy achieving the benefits of minimally invasive endoscopic and beating-heart surgery (avoidance of resternotomy risk and associated morbidity, right ventricular protection) in reoperative tricuspid surgery with persistent upper left vena cava

Chirurgie de la dissection aortique : pour quel patient ? [Surgery of aortic dissection: For which patient?]

International audienceIn the acute stage (less than two weeks), surgery is indicated for Stanford type A aortic dissections. With respect to the initial work-up, surgery consists in replacing the ascending aorta, sometimes the aortic arch (with supra aortic vessels reimplantation), and aortic valve replacement (valve replacement, Bentall valved tube or valve sparing Tyron David technique). Ischemic visceral complications must be searched for and treated by endovascular techniques or surgery. Aneurismal evolution of chronic dissections must be treated surgically. Replacement can encompass the entire aorta

How to facilitate introduction of delivery system in transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

International audienceA new method to facilitate both introduction and handling of the delivery system in transcatheter valve implantation via the direct transaortic access (TAo-TAVI) is presented. An additional upper 2-cm incision facilitates the coaxiality between the delivery system and the aortic root

Mid-term results of elective repair of extensive thoracic aortic pathology by the Evita Open Plus hybrid endoprosthesis only.: Follow-up of the Evita Open Plus

International audienceOBJECTIVES: To describe the early and mid-term clinical and instrumental results of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure using the recent Evita Open Plus hybrid endoprosthesis for elective one-stage treatment of extensive thoracic aortic disease. METHODS: We reviewed 16 patients undergoing FET for post-dissection aneurysm (50%), true aneurysm (31%) or other aetiologies (19%), through median sternotomy and hypothermic circulatory arrest. An average 14 ± 7.6-month follow-up with regular contrast-enhanced control computed tomography scans was available. Four patients received preliminary carotid-subclavian bypass to improve spinal cord protection. Distal extension through endovascular deployment of stent-grafts into the descending aorta was performed during the same procedure in 3 patients. Concomitant procedures on the ascending aorta/root were done in 25% of cases. RESULTS: There were no cases of operative mortality. Cases of neither cerebral stroke nor postoperative paraplegia were observed. Two cases of transient paraparesis and 1 case of Brown-Séquard syndrome occurred. At follow-up, there were no cases of endoleak or endotension. One patient was reoperated for distal completion (thoracoabdominal aortic replacement). CONCLUSIONS: The FET using the Evita Open Plus device is a reliable and versatile treatment for one-step management of extensive disease of the aortic arch and the descending aorta. This strategy should be reserved for patients having limited preoperative comorbidities and good functional status

Is the EuroSCORE II best suited for reoperative risk estimation in patients with structural deterioration of aortic bioprostheses?

International audienceBackground - Operative risk prediction systems (logistic EuroSCORE I, EuroSCORE II and STS Score) are employed together with multidisciplinary discussion to contraindicate conventional surgery in patients with valvular heart disease and propose the employment of alternative transcatheter procedures. The EuroSCORE I has been reported to underperform in these circumstances; we hypothesize that the EuroSCORE II is best suited for the stratification of risk in patients with structural deterioration (SVD) of valvular bioprostheses and potential candidates to the Valve-in-Valve procedure (deployment of a transcatheter valve within a failing valvular bioprosthesis). Methods and evaluation of the hypothesis - A multi-institutional collaboration is required to fully address such hypothesis. Therefore, we performed a preliminary validation study by retrieval of the complete records of 81 patients undergoing reoperative aortic valve replacement for preoperative diagnosis of bioprosthetic SVD at our Institution. Logistic EuroSCORE I, EuroSCORE II and STS Score were calculated by preoperatively available data. Faced to an observed reoperative mortality of 4.9%, average EuroSCORE I was 15.8%±13.4, EuroSCORE II was 7.3%±7.4 and the STS Score was 15%±9.8. The three systems provided sufficient adequacy (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.847, p=0.999 and p=0.9948, respectively). Yet, the area under the ROC curve was significantly higher for the EuroSCORE II (0.9903) vs. the EuroSCORE I (0.8994) (p=0.044). The STS Score yielded an intermediate figure (0.9643). The odds ratios (logistic regression) were 1.079 for EuroSCORE I, 1.223 for the STS Score and 1.474 for EuroSCORE II. Conclusions - The three investigated algorithms showed reasonable calibration in the prediction of mortality for reoperative aortic valve replacement, but they evenly overestimated the observed mortality. The hypothesis that the EuroSCORE II is better suited for the selection of candidates to Valve-in-Valve implantation is worth of further multi-institutional investigations on the basis of our preliminary findings and due to the expanding role of transcatheter techniques

Combined frozen elephant trunk and endovascular repair for extensive thoracic aortic aneurysms

International audienc

Predictors of 6-month poor clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

International audienceBACKGROUND: Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains a major concern. Indeed, despite promising results, it is still unclear which patients are most and least likely to benefit from this procedure. AIMS: To identify predictors of 6-month poor clinical outcomes after TAVI. METHODS: Patients who were discharged from our institution with a transcatheter-implanted aortic valve were followed prospectively. Our population was divided into two groups ('good outcomes' and 'poor outcomes') according to occurrence of primary endpoint (composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke, hospitalizations for valve-related symptoms or worsening heart failure from discharge to 6 months or 6-month New York Heart Association functional class III or IV). Patient characteristics were studied to find predictors of poor outcomes. RESULTS: We included 163 patients (mean age, 79.9 ± 8.8 years; 90 men [55%]; mean logistic EuroSCORE, 18.4 ± 11.4%). The primary endpoint occurred in 49 patients (mean age, 83 ± 5 years; 31 men [63%]). By multivariable analysis, atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR] 3.94), systolic pulmonary artery pressure ≥60 mmHg (OR 7.56) and right ventricular dysfunction (OR 3.55) were independent predictors of poor outcomes, whereas baseline aortic regurgitation ≥2/4 (OR 0.07) demonstrated a protective effect. CONCLUSION: Atrial fibrillation, severe baseline pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction (i.e. variables suggesting a more evolved aortic stenosis) were predictors of 6-month poor outcomes. Conversely, baseline aortic regurgitation ≥2/4 showed a protective effect, which needs to be confirmed in future studies. Our study highlights the need for a specific 'TAVI risk score', which could lead to better patient selection

Simple bedside clinical evaluation versus established scores in the estimation of operative risk in valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

International audienceBACKGROUND: The operative risk of cardiac surgery is ascertained preoperatively on the basis of scores validated in multinational studies. However, the value they add to a simple bedside clinical evaluation (CE) remains controversial. AIMS: To compare operative mortality (defined as death from all causes before the 31st postoperative day) predicted by CE with that predicted by additive and logistic EuroSCOREs, EuroSCORE II and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), Ambler and age-creatinine-ejection fraction (ACEF) scores in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis. METHODS: Overall, 314 consecutive patients were included who underwent AVR between October 2009 and November 2011 (22% with coronary artery bypass graft); mean age 73.4 ± 9.7 years (29% aged\textgreater80 years). Based on CE, patients were divided into four predefined groups of increasing estimated mortality risk: I ≤ 3.9%; II 4-6.9%; III 7-9.9%; IV ≥ 10%. The positive and negative predictive values of the six scores and CE were compared. RESULTS: The observed overall operative mortality was 5.7%. The distribution of the four predicted mortality groups by each score was highly variable. The positive predictive value, calculated for the 64 patients classified at highest risk by CE (groups III or IV) or each score, was 17.2% for EuroSCORE II, 14.1% for CE and STS scores, 10.9% for additive and logistic EuroSCOREs, 10.6% for ACEF and 10.2% for Ambler. The positive predictive value of each score in the low-risk groups (I and II) ranged from 2.8% to 4.4%. CONCLUSION: A simple bedside CE appears as reliable as the various established scores for predicting operative risk in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement. The development and validation of more comprehensive risk stratification tools, including risk factors thus far neglected, seems warranted