Decades of Surgery on the Thoracic Aorta

Thoracic aortic disease is an infrequently encountered condition of which the true prevalence and incidence is hard to establish. New thoracic aortic aneurysms are estimated to be present in 5-16/100.000 inhabitants in the USA and Sweden and seem to increase in prevalence. Probably this increase is largely due to improved diagnostics and ascertainment. In the USA aortic aneurysms were 19th in rank in the 2007 mortality statistics and constituted 0.5% of all deaths. In the Netherlands 1302 people were registered as having died due to aneurysms and dissections of the aorta in 2010. This is approximately 2 deaths per day and represents 1% of all mortality. In this introduction we will discuss the normal anatomy of the aorta, aortic pathology, surgical therapy of aortic diseases and the aims and outline of the thesis

Contemporary outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses and allografts: a systematic review and meta-analysis(aEuro)

Many observational studies have reported outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), but there are no recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses including all available bioprostheses and allografts. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the outcomes after AVR with bioprostheses and allografts reported in the last 15 years. We conducted a systematic literature review (PROSPERO register: CRD42015017041) of studies published between 2000–15. Inclusion criteria were observational studies or randomized controlled trials reporting on outcomes of AVR with bioprostheses (stented or stentless) or allografts, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve repair procedure, with study population size n ≥ 30 and mean follow-up length ≥5 years. Fifty-four bioprosthesis studies and 14 allograft studies were included, encompassing 55 712 and 3872 patients and 349 840 and 32 419 patient-years, respectively. We pooled early mortality risk and linearized occurrence rates of valve-related events, reintervention and late mortality in a random-effects model. Sensitivity, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the influence of outliers on the pooled estimates and to explore sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plots were used to investigate publication bias. Pooled early mortality risks for bioprostheses and allografts were 4.99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.44–5.62) and 5.03% (95% CI, 3.61–7.01), respectively. The late mortality rate was 5.70%/patient-year (95% CI, 4.99–5.62) for bioprostheses and 1.68%/patient-year (95% CI, 1.23–2.28) for allografts. Pooled reintervention rates for bioprostheses and allografts were 0.75%/patient-year (95% CI, 0.61–0.91) and 1.87%/patient-year (95% CI, 1.52–2.31), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity in most outcomes. Meta-regression analyses identified covariates that could explain the heterogeneity: implantation period, valve type, patient age, gender, pre-intervention New York Heart Association class III/IV, concomitant CABG, study design and follow-up length. There is possible publication bias in all outcomes. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides an overview of the outcomes after AVR with bioprostheses and allografts reported during the last 15 years. The results of this study can support patients and doctors in the prosthetic valve choice and can be used in microsimulation models to predict patient outcomes and estimate the cost-effectiveness of AVR with bioprostheses or allografts compared with current and future heart valve prostheses

Outcomes of different aortic arch replacement techniques

Background: Consensus on the best treatment for aortic arch pathology is unresolved due to an emerging variety of procedures. We aimed to compare the outcomes of two major techniques for open aortic arch replacement involving the supra-aortic branches and to identify the risk factors for specific adverse events. Methods: Between 1974 and 2017, 172 patients were treated with either the en bloc (island, n = 59; 34.3%) or branched graft technique (n = 113, 65.7%). Most of the patients were treated in an emergent/urgent setting (52.4%). Results: Patients who underwent the en bloc procedure had significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (median: 241 vs 271 minutes, P =.041) and aortic cross clamp times (median: 124 vs 168 minutes, P =.005) than patients who underwent the separate graft technique. Overall, the hospital mortality was lower in the en bloc group, 8.5% vs 19.5%, although the difference was not significant (P =.077). No difference was found in the survival between the separate graft and en bloc groups at 1 (77.0 vs 86.3%), 5 (67.7 vs 66.3%) and 10 years (42.4 vs 51.3%), (P =.63). The postoperative stroke rate was comparable between the en bloc and separate graft cohorts (14.3 vs 19.6%, P =.52). Diabetics and those who underwent an elephant trunk procedure were at a higher risk for reintervention. Conclusions: The separate graft technique, which is more common today, showed no difference from the en bloc technique with regard to hospital mortality and morbidity. Furthermore, the late survival and reintervention rates were similar after both procedures

Optimal temperature management in aortic arch surgery:A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objectives: New temperature management concepts of moderate and mild hypothermic circulatory arrest during aortic arch surgery have gained weight over profound cooling. Comparisons of all temperature levels have rarely been performed. We performed direct and indirect comparisons of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) (≤20°C), moderate hypothermic circulatory arrest (MHCA) (20.1–25°C), and mild hypothermic circulatory arrest (mild HCA) (≥25.1°C) in a network meta-analysis. Methods: The literature was systematically searched for all papers published through February 2022 reporting on clinical outcomes after aortic arch surgery utilizing DHCA, MHCA and mild HCA. The primary outcome was operative mortality. The secondary outcomes were postoperative stroke and acute kidney failure (AKI). Results: A total of 34 studies were included, with a total of 12,370 patients. DHCA was associated with significantly higher postoperative incidence of stroke when compared with MHCA (odds ratio [OR], 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19–1.78) and mild HCA: (OR, 1.50, 95% CI, 1.14–1.98). Furthermore, DHCA and MHCA were associated with higher operative mortality when compared with mild HCA (OR 1.71, 95% CI, 1.23–2.39 and OR 1.50, 95% CI, 1.12–2.00, respectively). Separate analysis of randomized and propensity score matched studies showed sustained increased risk of stroke with DHCA in contrast to MHCA and mild HCA (OR, 1.61, 95% CI, 1.18–2.20, p value =.0029 and OR, 1.74, 95% CI, 1.09–2.77, p value =.019). Conclusions: In the included studies, the moderate to mild hypothermia strategies were associated with decreased operative mortality and the risk of postoperative stroke. Large-scale prospective studies are warranted to further explore appropriate temperature management for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.</p

Aortic arch branching variations and risk of cerebrovascular accidents in patients with a left ventricular assist device

Aims This retrospective study investigated the association between anatomical variations in the aortic arch branching and adverse events, including the risk of cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs), in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Methods Medical charts were reviewed for all patients with HeartMate 3 LVAD support at our center from 2016 to 2021. Computed tomography scans were evaluated to categorize the variations in the aortic arch branching based on seven different types, as described in the literature. Results In total, 101 patients were included: 86 (85.1%) with a normal branching pattern and 15 (14.9%) with an anatomical variation. The following variations were observed: eight (7.9%) with a bovine arch and seven (6.9%) with a left vertebral arch. The median age was 57 years, 77.2% were men, and the median follow-up was 25 months. No difference was found in the rate of early (&lt; 30 days) re-exploration due to bleeding after LVAD implantation. The rate of CVA and mortality did not differ significantly between patients with a normal arch or an anatomical variation during follow-up, with hazard ratios of 1.47 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48 – 4.48; P U 0.495] and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.24 – 1.98; P U 0.489), respectively. Conclusion This preliminary study showed no differences in early and long-term adverse events, including CVA, when comparing patients with a variation in the aortic arch branching to patients with a normal aortic arch. However, knowledge of the variations in aortic arch branching could be meaningful during cardiac surgery for potential differences in surgical events in the perioperative period.</p

Contemporary outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses and allografts: ßA systematic review and meta-analysis

Many observational studies have reported outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR), but there are no recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses including all available bioprostheses and allografts. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the outcomes after AVR with bioprostheses and allografts reported in the last 15 years. We conducted a systematic literature review (PROSPERO register: CRD42015017041) of studies published between 2000-15. Inclusion criteria were observational studies or randomized controlled trials reporting on outcomes of AVR with bioprostheses (stented or stentless) or allografts, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve repair procedure, with study population size n ≥ 30 and mean follow-up length ≥5 years. Fifty-four bioprosthesis studies and 14 allograft studies were included, encompassing 55 712 and 3872 patients and 349 840 and 32 419 patient-years, respectively. We pooled early mortality risk and linearized occurrence rates of valve-related events, reintervention and late mortality in a random-effects model. Sensitivity, meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the influence of outliers on the pooled estimates and to explore sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plots were used to investigate publication bias. Pooled early mortality risks for bioprostheses and allografts were 4.99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.44-5.62) and 5.03% (95% CI, 3.61-7.01), respectively. The late mortality rate was 5.70%/patient-year (95% CI, 4.99-5.62) for bioprostheses and 1.68%/patient-year (95% CI, 1.23-2.28) for allografts. Pooled reintervention rates for bioprostheses and allografts were 0.75%/patient-year (95% CI, 0.61-0.91) and 1.87%/patient-year (95% CI, 1.52-2.31), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity in most outcomes. Meta-regression analyses identified covariates that could explain the heterogeneity: implantation period, valve type, patient age, gender, pre-intervention New York Heart Association class III/IV, concomitant CABG, study design and follow-up length. There is possible publication bias in all outcomes. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides an overview of the outcomes after AVR with bioprostheses and allografts reported during the last 15 years. The results of this study can support patients and doctors in the prosthetic valve choice and can be used in microsimulation models to predict patient outcomes and estimate the cost-effectiveness of AVR with bioprostheses or allografts compared with current and future heart valve prostheses

The endocarditis team

Endocarditis is een ernstig ziektebeeld met een hoge mortaliteit en morbiditeit. In de klinische praktijk proberen we de behandeling van deze patiënten te verbeteren door goede en snelle diagnostiek en door tijdig adequate antibiotische en zo nodig chirurgische therapie te starten. In de nieuwste richtlijnen wordt het begrip ‘endocarditisteam’ geïntroduceerd als cruciaal onderdeel in de verbetering van de zorg voor patiënten met (een verdenking op) endocarditis. Er wordt gesteld dat endocarditis een multidisciplinaire aanpak vraagt omdat het een ziekte is met een grote variatie in presentatie, waarvoor expertise nodig is van verschillende specialisaties, en ook omdat patiënten in een vroege fase dienen te worden besproken in een chirurgisch team. Observationele studies tonen een belangrijke reductie in de mortaliteit van endocarditispatiënten die zijn besproken in een endocarditisteam.Dit artikel bespreekt de ervaringen met het opzetten van een endocarditisteam in twee verschillende regio’s in Nederland (Rotterdam-​Rijnmond en Groningen). Wat is belangrijk als het gaat om de structuur en functie van een endocarditisteam? Het opzetten van een endocarditisteam kan lastig zijn. Daarom geven we enkele praktische tips. Ten slotte wordt de toegevoegde waarde van een operationeel endocarditisteam geïllustreerd aan de hand van een casus.Endocarditis is a life-​threatening disease with high mortality and morbidity. In clinical practice, we try to improve the outcome of patients with endocarditis by implementing a better and faster diagnostic workup, a timely start of antimicrobial therapy and an early surgical intervention if required. In the most recent update of the guidelines for the management of patients with endocarditis, an Endocarditis team is put forward as crucial part in the improvement of care for patients with (suspected) endocarditis. They state that endocarditis requires a multidisciplinary approach since patients present with highly variable signs and symptoms, need a high-​standard of care from several medical specialists, and need to be discussed in a surgical team early in the course of the disease. Observational studies support this implementation by showing a marked decrease in mortality after dicussing endocarditis patients in an Endocarditis team. This article discusses the experience with the implementation of an Endocarditis team in two different regions of the Netherlands (Rotterdam-​Rijnmond and Groningen). Which aspects are important for the structure and function of an Endocarditis team? The setting up of an Endocarditis team can be difficult, therefore we provide some practical advice. Finally, an illustrative case is presented