A life-threatening respiratory illness (COVID-19) due to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 coronavirus was first described in December 2019 in Wuhan (China), rapidly evolving into a pandemic. In the first phase, when the viral replication plays a pivotal pathogenetic role, antiviral drugs could be crucial in limiting viral-induced organ damage. Unfortunately, there are no specific antivirals of proven efficacy for COVID-19, and several drugs have been repurposed to face this dramatic pandemic. In this paper we review the studies evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir association (LPV/r) use in COVID-19, and previously in SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We searched PubMed to identify all relevant clinical and laboratory studies published up to 15 May 2020; the guidelines on the use of LPV/r in COVID-19 were further directly searched on the website of the main international scientific societies and agencies. Available evidence is currently scarce and of low quality. The recommendations issued for COVID-19 vary from positions clearly against the use of LPV/r to other positions that are more favorable. In our opinion, despite the controversial results of an important randomized clinical trial, and some recommendations, clinicians should not abandon the use of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19, possibly using this drug inside a prospective randomized trial, waiting for the results of the numerous ongoing trials evaluating its efficacy.

(1) Background: Acute Stanford type A aortic dissection (TAAD) may complicate the outcome of cardiovascular procedures. Data on the outcome after surgery for iatrogenic acute TAAD is scarce. (2) Methods: The European Registry of Type A Aortic Dissection (ERTAAD) is a multicenter, retrospective study including patients who underwent surgery for acute TAAD at 18 hospitals from eight European countries. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and 5-year mortality. Twenty-seven secondary outcomes were evaluated. (3) Results: Out of 3902 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for acute TAAD, 103 (2.6%) had iatrogenic TAAD. Cardiac surgery (37.8%) and percutaneous coronary intervention (36.9%) were the most frequent causes leading to iatrogenic TAAD, followed by diagnostic coronary angiography (13.6%), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (10.7%) and peripheral endovascular procedure (1.0%). In hospital mortality was 20.5% after cardiac surgery, 31.6% after percutaneous coronary intervention, 42.9% after diagnostic coronary angiography, 45.5% after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and nihil after peripheral endovascular procedure (p = 0.092), with similar 5-year mortality between different subgroups of iatrogenic TAAD (p = 0.710). Among 102 propensity score matched pairs, in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among patients with iatrogenic TAAD (30.4% vs. 15.7%, p = 0.013) compared to those with spontaneous TAAD. This finding was likely related to higher risk of postoperative heart failure (35.3% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.0001) among iatrogenic TAAD patients. Five-year mortality was comparable between patients with iatrogenic and spontaneous TAAD (46.2% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.163). (4) Conclusions: Iatrogenic origin of acute TAAD is quite uncommon but carries a significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality compared to spontaneous TAAD.

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious disease, and in many cases, surgery is necessary. Whether the type of prosthesis implanted for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for IE impacts patient survival is a matter of debate. The aim of the present study is to quantify differences in long-term survival and recurrence of endocarditis AVR for IE according to prosthesis type among patients aged 40 to 65 years. Methods: This was an analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY. Trends in proportion to the use of mechanical prostheses versus biological ones over time were tested by applying the sieve bootstrapped t-test. Confounders were adjusted using the optimal full-matching propensity score. The difference in overall survival was compared using the Cox model, whereas the differences in recurrence of endocarditis were evaluated using the Gray test. Results: Overall, 4365 patients were diagnosed and operated on for IE from 2000 to 2021. Of these, 549, aged between 40 and 65 years, underwent AVR. A total of 268 (48.8%) received mechanical prostheses, and 281 (51.2%) received biological ones. A significant trend in the reduction of implantation of mechanical vs. biological prostheses was observed during the study period (p < 0.0001). Long-term survival was significantly higher among patients receiving a mechanical prosthesis than those receiving a biological prosthesis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.546, 95% CI: 0.322–0.926, p = 0.025). Mechanical prostheses were associated with significantly less recurrent endocarditis after AVR than biological prostheses (HR 0.268, 95%CI: 0.077–0.933, p = 0.039). Conclusions: The present analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY shows increased survival and reduced recurrence of endocarditis after a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis implant for IE in middle-aged patients.

Background: Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) is a life-threatening condition which requires prompt diagnosis and surgical treatment. When TAAD involves the aortic root, aortic valve-sparing or Bentall procedures are the main surgical treatment options. Method: The subjects of this analysis were 3735 patients included in the European Registry of Type A Aortic Dissection (ERTAAD). Propensity score matching was performed by estimating a propensity score from being treated with the Bentall or the David procedure using multilevel mixed-effects logistics, considering the cluster effect of the participating hospitals. Results: A Bentall procedure was performed in 862 patients, while a David operation was performed in 139 patients. The proportion of aortic root replacement, as well as the different techniques of aortic root replacement, varied significantly between the participating hospitals (p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, we obtained two groups of 115 patients each, and no statistical differences were reported in terms of postoperative outcomes, except for the rate of dialysis, which was higher in the patients requiring a Bentall procedure (17.4% vs. 7.0%, p-value 0.016). In the unmatched cohorts, the David procedure was associated with a lower 10-year mortality rate compared to the Bentall procedure (30.1% vs. 45.6%, p-value 0.004), but no difference was observed after matching (30.0% vs. 43.9%, p-value 0.082). After 10 years, no differences were observed in terms of proximal aortic reoperation (3.9% vs. 4.1%, p-value 0.954), even after propensity score matching (2.8% vs. 1.8%, p-value 0.994). Conclusions: The David and Bentall procedures are durable treatment methods for TAAD. When feasible, it is advisable that the David procedure is performed for acute TAAD by surgeons with experience with this demanding surgical technique.

Background and Aim of the Study: In patients with acute type A aortic dissection (A-AAD) whether initial repair should include also aortic arch replacement is still debated. We aimed to assess if extensive aortic repair prevents from reoperations patients with A-AAD. Methods: Outcomes after distal reoperation following repair of A-AAD (n = 285; 1977 to 2018) were analysed in 22 of 226 who underwent ascending aorta/hemiarch replacement (Group 1R) and 7 of 59 who had ascending aorta/arch replacement (Group 2R). Results: Distal reoperation was more common in Group 1R (n = 22) than in Group 2R (n = 0) (p < 0.001) while thoracic endovascular stenting was more frequent in Group 2R (7 vs 3, p < 0.001). Indications for reoperation were pseudoaneurysm at distal anastomosis (n = 4, 18%) and progression of aortic dissection (n = 18, 82%) in Group 1R. Indication for thoracic endovascular stenting was progressive aortic dissection in 3 patients of Group 1R and in 6 of Group 2R. Second reoperation was required in 2 patients from Group 1R (2%) during a mean follow-up of 5 years. Median follow-up was 4 years in Group 1R and 7 years in Group 2R (p = 0.36). Hospital mortality was 14% in Group 1R and 0% in Group 2R (p = 0.3). Actuarial survival is 68 ± 10%, and 62 ± 11% for Group 1R and 100% for Group 2R at 5 and 10 years (p = 0.076). Conclusions: Distal reoperations after A-AAD repair have an acceptable mortality. An extensive initial repair has lower rate of reoperation and better mid-term survival and should be indicated especially for young patients in experienced centers.

Background/Objectives: The influence of surgeon expertise on patients’ outcomes after repair of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is not well established. The aim of this paper is to report the results of ATAAD repair performed by expert (ES) and not expert aortic surgeons (NES) in our center. Methods: We have retrospectively divided 199 patients into two groups according to the first surgeon experience (ES = 138 patients and NES = 61 patients), all being members of the aortic team. We evaluated and compared early and long-term outcomes. Results: Although the two groups were comparable in terms of clinical presentation and intraoperative setting, ES performed more aortic arch repairs (40% vs. 26%, p = 0.06) and frozen elephant trunk procedures (15% vs. 3%, p = 0.02), albeit with similar intraoperative times (median cardiopulmonary bypass time of 203 min in ES vs. 201 min in NES, respectively, p = 0.88). The 30-day mortality was the same in the two groups (8%, p = 1), and the postoperative course was similar except for a shorter in-hospital stay in the NES group (10 vs. 17 days, p = 0.04). Conclusions: In our experience, repair of ATAAD could be achieved with similar results between ES and NES. However, NES performed less technically demanding repairs. With standardization of pre-, intra-, and post-operative management, NES can be expected to increase their technical skills and be progressively involved in more complex ATAAD repairs without adversely affecting surgical results.