(1) Background: Arterial cannulation in type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) is still subject to debate. We describe a systematic approach of using the innominate artery for arterial perfusion (2) Methods: The hospital records of 110 consecutive patients with acute TAAAD operated on between January 2014 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The effect of the cannulation site on early and late mortality, as well as on cardio-pulmonary perfusion indices (lactate and base excess levels, and cooling and rewarming speed) were investigated. (3) Results: There was a significant difference in early mortality (8.82% vs. 40.79%, p < 0.01) but no difference in long-term survival beyond the first 30 days. Using the innominate artery enabled the use of approximately 20% higher CPB flows (2.73 ± 0.1 vs. 2.42 ± 0.06 L/min/m² BSA, p < 0.01), which resulted in more rapid cooling (1.89 ± 0.77 vs. 3.13 ± 1.62 min/°C/m² BSA, p < 0.01), rewarming (2.84 ± 1.36 vs. 4.22 ± 2.23, p < 0.01), lower mean base excess levels during CPB (−5.01 ± 2.99 mEq/L vs. −6.66 ± 3.37 mEq/L, p = 0.01) and lower lactate levels at the end of the procedure (4.02 ± 2.48 mmol/L vs. 6.63 ± 4.17 mmol/L, p < 0.01). Postoperative permanent neurologic insult (3.12% vs. 20%, p = 0.02) and acute kidney injury (3.12% vs. 32.81%, p < 0.01) were significantly reduced. (4) Conclusions: systematic use of the innominate artery enables better perfusion and superior results in TAAAD repair.

Acquired von Willebrand factor deficiency has been described in patients with aortic valve stenosis due to high shear forces developed during passage through the narrowed valve orifice, which determines structural changes in this molecule. Similar flow conditions are present in patients with an aortic prosthesis that presents a patient-prosthesis mismatch. Patient-prosthesis mismatch is described by the smaller effective orifice area of the prosthesis than the native valve, which would probably determine similar changes in the molecules of the von Willebrand factor, leading to acquiring von Willebrand deficiency.

Background: The effect of PPM in mechanical prostheses on long-term survival is not well-established. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000 and 2011 were retrospectively analyzed (n = 416). Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in patient subgroups (PPM vs. no PPM; severe PPM vs. no severe PPM). Results: Five- and ten-year survival was 78 ± 3.52% and 64.51 ± 4.51% in patients with PPM, versus 83.3 ± 3.12% and 69.37 ± 4.36% in patients without (p = 0.28) when analyzed at 10.39 ± 5.25 years after the primary procedure. Independent risk factors for impaired survival, after matching, were age, serum creatinine, and severe pulmonary hypertension. Five- and ten-year survival in patients with severe PPM was 73.34 ± 6.01% and 61.76 ± 8.17%, respectively, versus 74.72 ± 5.68% and 67.50 ± 7.09% in those without (p = 0.49), at 8.82 ± 5.17 years after SAVR. Age was the only independent variable that influenced long-term survival when severe PPM was added to the model. Conclusions: PPM or severe PPM does not impact long-term survival up to 10 years in mechanical valve recipients when matching for preoperative variables.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a prevalent valvular disorder that poses a significant burden on healthcare systems due to its debilitating symptoms and high mortality rates if left untreated. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are the primary interventions for severe AS, but perioperative complications such as bleeding remain a concern. Von Willebrand factor (VWF), a crucial player in hemostasis, is known to be altered in AS and may contribute to the hemostatic imbalance observed in these patients. This prospective study aimed to investigate the association between prosthetic valve type, size, and postprocedural VWF levels in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe AS. This study involved 39 consecutive patients diagnosed with severe AS who underwent SAVR or TAVR. By elucidating the VWF dynamics associated with different prosthetic valves, this study sought to provide valuable insights into personalized valve selection and perioperative management strategies.

Background: Primary cardiac tumors are exceedingly rare, accounting for less than 0.2% of cases in autopsy series. Myxomas represent the majority, while hemangiomas are exceptionally uncommon, accounting for less than 2% of benign cardiac tumors. Their rarity, nonspecific clinical presentation, and overlapping imaging features make preoperative diagnosis particularly challenging. Case presentation: We report the case of a 47-year-old woman with exertional dyspnoea and a large right atrial mass initially suggestive of myxoma on transthoracic echocardiography. Coronary angiography revealed a small fistulous connection, raising suspicion of a vascular lesion. Surgical resection was performed, and histopathological examination confirmed a cavernous hemangioma. The postoperative course was favorable, with no residual mass on follow-up imaging. Discussion: Cardiac hemangiomas are often misdiagnosed as myxomas due to similar clinical and echocardiographic appearances. This case illustrates the diagnostic challenges posed by cardiac hemangiomas and the importance of correlating multiple imaging modalities when assessing atypical atrial masses. Our case highlights the potential role of multimodal imaging, including contrast echocardiography, cardiac MRI, and coronary angiography, in differentiating vascular from non-vascular cardiac tumors. Based on recurrent patterns in the literature, we outline a conceptual diagnostic framework that may assist preoperative evaluation. Conclusions: Although rare, cardiac hemangiomas should be considered in the differential diagnosis of atrial masses. Multimodal imaging may improve diagnostic accuracy, but additional data from multicenter registries are required to establish validated diagnostic pathways.

Background: The long-term performance of prostheses in the small aortic root is still unclear. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000–2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in 19 mm vs. 21 mm valve subgroups. Results: Survival at 10 years was 55.87 ± 5.54% for 19 mm valves vs. 57.17 ± 2.82% for 21 mm ones in the original cohort (p = 0.37), and 58.69 ± 5.61% in 19 mm valve recipients vs. 53.60 ± 5.66% for 21 mm valve subgroups in the matched cohort (p = 0.55). Smaller valves exhibited significantly more patient–prothesis mismatch (PPM) than larger ones (87.30% vs. 57.94%, p < 0.01). All-cause mortality was affected by PPM at 10 years (52.66 ± 3.28% vs. 64.38 ± 3.87%, p = 0.04) in the unmatched population. This difference disappeared, however, after matching: survival at 10 years was 51.82 ± 5.26% in patients with PPM and 63.12 ± 6.43% in patients without PPM. (p = 0.14) Conclusions: There is no survival penalty in using 19 mm prostheses in the small aortic root in the current era. Although PPM is more prevalent in smaller sized valve recipients, this does not translate into reduced survival at 10 years of follow-up.