OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of bovine pericardial tube graft repair for infectious aortic disease in any aortic segment. METHODS: Between May 2015 and July 2020, 45 patients were treated for infectious aortic disease of the native (n = 9) aorta or after (endo-)graft (n = 36) implantation with bovine pericardial tube grafts. Clinical, infectious details, outcomes and follow-up data were evaluated. RESULTS: All aortic segments underwent pericardial tube graft or bifurcational replacement: the aortic root (n = 12, 27%), ascending aorta (n = 18, 40%), aortic arch (n = 7, 16%), descending aorta (n = 5, 11%), thoraco-abdominal aorta (n = 6, 13%) and abdominal aorta (n = 18, 40%) including the iliac arteries (n = 14, 31%). Organ fistulation (n = 15, 33%) was the most common underlying pathology. Seven patients (16%) expired in-hospital secondary to ongoing sepsis (n = 5, 11%), respiratory failure (n = 1, 2%) and unknown cause (n = 1, 2%). A fungal infection was predictive for in-hospital mortality (P = 0.026, odds ratio: 19.470). After a median follow-up of 11 [first quartile: 2, third quartile 26] months, 9 additional patients (20%) expired and 1 patient developed a postoperative spondylodiscitis at the level of the aortic tube graft. Hence, freedom from proven aortic graft re-infection was 98%. CONCLUSIONS: Orthotopic aortic reconstruction using bovine pericardial tube grafts to treat infectious aortic disease is possible in any aortic segment. Organ fistulation is a frequently observed disease mechanism requiring concomitant treatment. Granted, the early attrition rate is substantial, but after the initial period, both survival and freedom from re-infection appear encouraging.

: OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of concomitant ascending aortic replacement on operative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed our institutional database for all patients undergoing elective isolated AVR and AVR with concomitant replacement of the ascending aorta between January 2009 and May 2020. Patients undergoing surgery for infective endocarditis or requiring hypothermic circulatory arrest were excluded. A 3:1 propensity matching was performed for 688 patients to compare isolated AVR (120 patients) with AVR + ascending aortic replacement (40 patients). RESULTS: There were significant differences in median cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time [92.5 (75–114) vs 118.5 (104–131) min; P < 0.001], median aortic cross-clamp time [65.0 (51.5–78.5) vs 84.5 (77–94) min; P < 0.001] and median intensive care unit stay [1 (1–3) vs 2 (1–6) days; P < 0.01]. There was no significant difference in the use of intraoperative and postoperative blood products, re-exploration for bleeding, postoperative atrial fibrillation, acute renal failure, incidence of stroke, perioperative myocardial infarction and 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant replacement of the ascending aorta significantly prolongs CPB and aortic clamp times but does not increase operative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, replacement of a dilated ascending aorta appears to be the most durable and safest treatment option in patients undergoing AVR with an aneurysmatic ascending aorta.

: OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures. METHODS: Forty departments shared their data on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures between January and May 2020 and January and May 2019 in Europe, Asia and the USA. Admission rates as well as delay from onset of symptoms to referral were compared. RESULTS: No differences in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures were observed between 2020 and the reference period in 2019 [incidence rates ratio (IRR): 0.96, confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.04; P = 0.39]. Also, no difference in the time interval from acute onset of symptoms to referral was recorded ( 12 h 68% in 2020, < 12 h 34% vs > 12 h 66% in 2019 P = 0.29). Conversely, a decline of 35% in elective procedures was seen (IRR: 0.81, CI 0.76–0.87; P < 0.001) with substantial differences between countries and the most pronounced decline in Italy (−40%, P < 0.001). Interestingly, in Switzerland, an increase in the number of elective cases was observed (+35%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There was no change in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic cases and procedures during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the case load of elective operations and procedures decreased significantly. Patients with acute aortic syndromes presented despite COVID-19 and were managed according to current guidelines. Further analysis is required to prove that deferral of elective cases had no impact on premature mortality.

Objectives The Perceval valve was shown to facilitate minimal-invasive operations and shorten operative times. We aimed to compare the early results of the Perceval valve to those of well-established valves, namely the Carpentier–Edwards Perimount and Perimount Magna Ease valve protheses, in terms of their clinical and hemodynamic performances. Methods This is a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study. For every patient operated with a Perceval valve, the last patient before and the next following patient receiving a Perimount valve was included in a control group leading to a 2:1 ratio (Perimount:Perceval). A propensity score matching was used and a subgroup analysis was performed to compare early and late Perceval patients as the sizing technique was changed over time. Results From November 2013 to November 2017, 423 patients were identified. These included 141 consecutive patients receiving a Perceval valve through a full- or a hemi-sternotomy. In addition, 282 patients receiving a Perimount or a Magna Ease valve were enrolled. After propensity score matching, 127 matched patients were compared. Operating times were shorter and postoperative transvalvular pressure gradients were lower in the Perceval group (15 vs. 17 mmHg, p = 0.002). There was no difference in mortality and stroke rates. The incidence of new pacemaker implantations was higher in the Perceval group (7.1 vs. 18.9%, p = 0.005), mainly due to a very high incidence in the early phase of our Perceval experience prior to a change in the Perceval implantation technique. Subgroup analysis showed significantly better results in the late Perceval group. Conclusion Surgical outcome was good in both groups. The Perceval valve exhibited lower postoperative gradients, and the need for pacemaker implantation was higher and can be reduced by avoiding oversizing.

To elaborate on early survival in patients with mitral valve replacement requiring temporary extracorporeal life support system (ECLS). We analyzed survival, significant bleeding, wound infection, and ECLS duration in 421 from 14,400 patients with postoperative need for ECLS from January 2008 to December 2017 at our institution. Finally, patients were stratified according to the type of surgery performed: the mitral group (mitral valve replacement) n = 63 and the control group (any cardiac surgery excluding the mitral valve) n = 358. In order to adjust for preoperative patient characteristics, a propensity matching analysis was performed. Differences in in-hospital mortality were analyzed accordingly. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the mitral group as compared to the control group before and after adjustment (p < 0.001). Median duration of ECLS was 4 days in both groups. Perioperative bleeding (p < 0.001) and wound infection (p < 0.001) also showed significant worse outcome parameters in the mitral group. The main causes of death in the mitral group were multiorgan failure, n = 48 (76%), stroke, n = 7 (12%), and intracardiac thrombus formation, n = 5 (10%). ECLS is associated with a high in-hospital mortality rate in patients after mitral valve replacement.

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of recannulating the axillary artery in reoperative proximal thoracic aortic surgery. Between 2008 and 2020, we evaluated patients who underwent reoperative proximal thoracic aortic surgery. The patients were divided into 2 groups: (i) patients with no previous right axillary artery cannulation (primary cannulation group) and (ii) patients with a previous cannulated right axillary artery (recannulation group). We analysed the intraoperative data, cannulation-related complications, postoperative outcomes and compared the 2 groups (primary cannulation versus recannulation). The patient (n = 132) baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. There was no statistically significant difference in regard to the duration of surgery, cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamp and antegrade cerebral perfusion time nor in regard to the total number of patients with cannulation-related complications between the 2 groups [n = 8 (8.0%) vs n = 1 (3.1%), P = 0.34]. The incidence of iatrogenic axillary artery dissection, iatrogenic aortic dissection, iatrogenic aortic dissection leading to death, axillary artery thrombosis, need for surgical repair, brachial plexus injury rates, malperfusion, high perfusion resistance and hyperperfusion syndrome revealed no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). There were 11 (11.0%) cases of stroke in the primary cannulation group and 1 (3.1%) in the recannulation group (P = 0.18). Recannulation of the right axillary artery in reoperative proximal thoracic aortic surgery is not associated with worse clinical outcomes and can be safely and effectively performed, also representing a preventive and rescue measure. Previous cannulation of the axillary artery should not hinder the decision for recannulation.