: OBJECTIVES: Papillary muscle rupture (PMR) is a rare but potentially fatal complication of acute myocardial infarction. The aim of this study was to analyse the patient characteristics and early outcomes of the surgical management of post-infarction PMR from an international multicentre registry.METHODS: Patients underwent surgery for post-infarction PMR between 2001 through 2019 were retrieved from database of the CAUTION study. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality.RESULTS: A total of 214 patients were included with a mean age of 66.9 (standard deviation: 10.5) years. The posteromedial papillary muscle was the most frequent rupture location (71.9%); the rupture was complete in 67.3% of patients. Mitral valve replacement was performed in 82.7% of cases. One hundred twenty-two patients (57%) had concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. In-hospital mortality was 24.8%. Temporal trends revealed no apparent improvement in in-hospital mortality during the study period. Multivariable analysis showed that preoperative chronic kidney disfunction [odds ratio (OR): 2.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07–6.45, P = 0.036], cardiac arrest (OR: 3.99, 95% CI: 1.02–15.61, P = 0.046) and cardiopulmonary bypass duration (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00–1.02, P = 0.04) were independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death, whereas concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was identified as an independent predictor of early survival (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16–0.92, P = 0.031).CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment for post-infarction PMR carries a high in-hospital mortality rate, which did not improve during the study period. Because concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting confers a survival benefit, this additional procedure should be performed, whenever possible, in an attempt to improve the outcome.Clinical trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03848429.

: OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the long-term results of aortic root (AR) preservation and replacement in patients operated on for acute type A aortic dissection.METHODS: Out of 302 patients discharged after repair of acute aortic dissection (1977–2019), 124 patients had an AR ≥40 mm, which was preserved in 84 (68%, group A) patients and replaced in 40 (32%, group B) patients. Group B patients were younger (mean age 57 ± 12 vs 62 ± 11 years, P = 0.07), with a mean AR of 47 vs 43 mm and ≥moderate aortic insufficiency in 65% vs 30%. Survival, causes of death and reoperations were analysed at mean follow-up of 9 ± 8 years (6 months to 40 years).RESULTS: Actuarial survival of discharged patients at 5, 10 and 15 years was 97% (0.89–0.99), 78% (0.67–0.90) and 75% (0.64–0.88) in group A, and 85% (0.71–0.95), 62% (0.44–0.78) and 57% (0.39–0.76) in group B (log-rank test P = 0.2). Nine patients in group A (7 patients for aortic insufficiency and dilatation of the root and 2 patients for pseudoaneurysm) and 1 patient of group B (pseudoaneurysm of the right coronary button) required proximal reoperation without deaths. At 5, 10 and 15 years, the cumulative incidence of proximal aortic reoperations was 5%, 9% and 25% in group A, and 0%, 3% and 3% in group B (P = 0.02). At multivariable analysis AR >45 mm [hazard ratio (HR) 6.8, P = 0.026] and age (HR 0.9, P = 0.016) were independently associated with proximal reoperation.CONCLUSIONS: AR preservation in acute type A dissection showed acceptable long-term outcomes. Nevertheless, a more aggressive approach appears a valid option, especially in patients with AR diameter >45 mm.

Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have been introduced as alternatives to traditional prosthetic valves to reduce cardiopulmonary and aortic cross-clamp times during aortic valve replacement. These devices have also been employed in extremely demanding surgical settings, as underlined in the present review. Searches on the PubMed and Medline databases aimed to identify, from the English-language literature, the reported cases where both sutureless and rapid-deployment prostheses were employed in challenging surgical situations, usually complex reoperations sometimes even performed as bailout procedures. We have identified 25 patients for whom a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis was used in complex redo procedures: 17 patients with a failing stentless bioprosthesis, 6 patients with a failing homograft, and 2 patients with the failure of a valve-sparing procedure. All patients survived reoperation and were reported to be alive 3 months to 4 years postoperatively. Sutureless and rapid-deployment bioprostheses have proved effective in replacing degenerated stentless bioprostheses and homografts in challenging redo procedures. In these settings, they should be considered as a valid alternative not only to traditional prostheses but also in selected cases to transcatheter valve-in-valve solutions.

Background and aim of the study: In patients with acute Type A aortic dissection (A-AAD) whether repair should be limited to ascending aorta/hemiarch replacement or extended to include the aortic arch is still debated. We have analyzed our experience to compare outcomes of patients with A-AAD treated with these 2 different surgical strategies. Methods: From 2006 to 2020, a total of 213 patients have undergone repair of A-AAD at our Center; in 163 of them ascending aorta/hemiarch replacement (Group 1) and in 75 ascending aorta and arch replacement (Group 2) were performed. The primary endpoint was early survival and secondary endpoints late survival, freedom from late complications and reoperations. Patients were compared according to era of operation: 2006 to 2013 (Era 1) and 2014 to 2020 (Era 2). Results: Overall hospital mortality was 12% and 5% in Group 1 and 2; mortality remained stable in Era 1 and 2 for Group 1 (15%), while it decreased from 8% to 1% in Group 2 patients (p = 0.24). Actuarial survival at 5 and 10 years is 72 ± 4% and 49 ± 5% in Group 1 and 77 ± 6% and 66 ± 9% in Group 2 (p = 0.073). Actuarial freedom from reoperation in the entire series is 94 ± 2% and 92 ± 3% at 5 and 10 years. Freedom from reoperation at 5 and 10 years is 92 ± 2% and 89 ± 3% in Group 1 and 98 ± 1% at all intervals in Group 2 (p = 0.068). Conclusions: An aggressive approach to A-AAD provides superior long-term results without increasing mortality. Furthermore, arch replacement during A-AAD repair represents a more stable solution with lower incidence of late aortic-related complications. Immediate aortic arch replacement should be considered in the treatment of A-AAD especially in experienced centers.

Although the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been the most widely adopted temporary mechanical support device in cardiac surgical patients, its use has declined. The current study aimed to evaluate the occurrence and predictors of early mortality and complication rates in contemporary cardiac surgery patients supported by an IABP. A multicentre, retrospective analysis was performed of all consecutive cardiac surgical patients receiving perioperative balloon pump support in 8 centres between January 2010 to December 2019. The primary outcome was early mortality, and secondary outcomes were balloon-associated complications. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was applied to evaluate predictors of the primary outcome. The study cohort consisted of 2615 consecutive patients. The median age was 68 years [25th percentile 61, 75th percentile 75 years], with the majority being male (76.9%), and a mean calculated 30-day mortality risk of 10.0%. Early mortality was 12.7% (n = 333), due to cardiac causes (n = 266), neurological causes (=22), balloon-related causes (n = 5) and other causes (n = 40). A composite end point of all vascular complications occurred in 7.2% of patients, and leg ischaemia was observed in 1.3% of patients. The most important predictors of early mortality were peripheral vascular disease [odds ratio (OR) 1.63], postoperative dialysis requirement (OR 10.40) and vascular complications (OR 2.57). The use of the perioperative IABP proved to be safe and demonstrated relatively low complication rates, particularly for leg ischaemia. As such, we believe that specialists should not be held back to use this widely available treatment in high-risk cardiac surgical patients when indicated.