OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve regurgitation (AR) frequently complicates the clinical course after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this cohort with a mostly high surgical risk profile. The unique challenges in LVAD patients, such as presence of non-calcified aortic valves and annular dilatation, raise concerns about device migration and paravalvular leakage (PVL) leading to missing device success. This study evaluates procedural outcomes and survival rates in LVAD patients who underwent TAVI, emphasizing strategies to enhance device success. METHODS: Between January 2017 and April 2023, 27 LVAD patients with clinically significant AR underwent elective or urgent TAVI at our centre. Primary end-points were procedural success rates, without the need for a second transcatheter heart valve (THV) and postprocedural AR/PVL. Secondary outcomes included survival rates and adverse events. RESULTS: Among the cohort, 14.8% received AR-dedicated TAVI devices, with none requiring a second THV. There was no intraprocedural AR, and 1 patient (25%) had AR > ‘trace’ at discharge. Additionally, 25.9% underwent device landing zone (DLZ) pre-stenting with a standard TAVI device, all without needing a second THV. There was no intraprocedural AR, and none to trace AR at discharge. Among the 59.3% receiving standard TAVI devices, 37.5% required a second THV. In this subgroup, intraprocedural AR > ‘trace’ occurred in 12.5%, decreasing to 6.25% at discharge. In-hospital mortality was 3.7%, and median follow-up survival was 388 days (interquartile range 208–1167 days). CONCLUSIONS: TAVI yields promising procedural outcomes and early survival rates in LVAD patients with AR. Tailored TAVI devices and pre-stenting techniques enhance procedural success. Continued research into these strategies is essential to optimize outcomes in this complex patient cohort.

Background: Perioperative stroke remains a devastating complication in the operative treatment of acute type A aortic dissection. To reduce the risk of perioperative stroke, different perfusion techniques can be applied. A consensus on the preferred cerebral protection strategy does not exist. Methods: To provide an overview about the different cerebral protection strategies, literature research on Medline/PubMed was performed. All available original articles reporting on cerebral protection in surgery for acute type A aortic dissection and neurologic outcomes since 2010 were included. Results: Antegrade and retrograde cerebral perfusion may provide similar neurological outcomes while outperforming deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. The choice of arterial cannulation site and chosen level of hypothermia are influencing factors for perioperative stroke. Conclusions: Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest is not recommended as the sole cerebral protection technique. Antegrade and retrograde cerebral perfusion are today’s standard to provide cerebral protection during aortic surgery. Bilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion potentially leads to superior outcomes during prolonged circulatory arrest times between 30 and 50 min. Arterial cannulation sites with antegrade perfusion (axillary, central or carotid artery) in combination with moderate hypothermia seem to be advantageous. Every concept should be complemented by adequate intraoperative neuromonitoring.

The treatment of DeBakey type I aortic dissection remains a major challenge in the field of aortic surgery. To upgrade the standard of care hemiarch replacement, a novel device called an “Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent” (AMDS) is now available. This hybrid device composed of a proximal polytetrafluoroethylene cuff and a distal non-covered nitinol stent is inserted into the aortic arch and the descending thoracic aorta during hypothermic circulatory arrest in addition to hemiarch replacement. Due to its specific design, it may result in a reduced risk for distal anastomotic new entries, the effective restoration of branch vessel malperfusion and positive aortic remodeling. In this narrative review, we provide an overview about the indications and the technical use of the AMDS. Additionally, we summarize the current available literature and discuss potential pitfalls in the application of the AMDS regarding device failure and aortic re-intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this project was to assess the efficacy of a reoperative frozen elephant trunk (FET) operation for treating residual type A aortic dissections. METHODS: Between April 2015 and October 2023, a total of 237 patients underwent elective redo surgical aortic arch replacement via the FET technique to treat residual type A aortic dissection in 11 European aortic centres. Data were pooled and analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: The time between an acute type A dissection repair to an FET implant was 5 years. More than half of all patients (54%) presented with an entry within the aortic arch, and 174 patients (73%) presented residual dissections of supra-aortic vessels. During FET repair, the axillary artery was cannulated in 181 patients (76%), whereas 83 patients (35%) underwent additional cardiac procedures including 39 root replacements (16%) and 15 coronary bypass procedures (6%). Zone 2 was the most common arch anastomosis site (n = 163, 69%), and bilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion was most frequent (n = 159, 67%). Fifteen patients (6%) died in-hospital. Age in years (P < 0.001, odds ratio: 1.069) proved to be predictive for overall mortality in our Cox regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Elective redo surgical aortic arch replacement using the FET technique for treating residual type A aortic dissection following ascending aortic replacement revealed a favourable outcome. The decision to undertake stage two therapy of a residually dissected aortic arch should be made by an aortic team on a patient-by-patient basis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to investigate the outcome of elderly patients with surgically treated acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) complicated by malperfusion. METHODS: Patients ≥70 years old who underwent surgical treatment for ATAAD between January 2000 and December 2020 were enrolled in this study and stratified by their specific Penn Classification into 4 different subgroups, where Penn Abc was defined as multilevel malperfusion. Short- and long-term outcomes were investigated. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Four hundred elderly patients underwent surgical treatment for ATAAD. A total of 204 (51%) patients had no evidence of malperfusion (Penn Aa), 106 (26.5%) had localized organic malperfusion (Penn Ab), 44 (11%) patients had systemic malperfusion (Penn Ac) and 46 (11.5%) suffered from multilevel malperfusion (Penn Abc). For the latter, in-hospital mortality was 70% (P < 0.001). Age (P < 0.006) and multilevel malperfusion (P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for 1-year mortality. Patients with multilevel malperfusion showed the worst 1-year survival (P < 0.001). In the case of Penn Aa, in-hospital mortality was 13% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery may lead to satisfactory results in the absence of malperfusion, even in octogenarians. Elderly patients with multilevel malperfusion show very poor surgical outcome. In these patients, the decision for surgery should be taken with caution. Operation, if performed, should be carried out by experienced teams only.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigates early and midterm outcomes after surgery for acute DeBakey type I dissection between classic hemiarch replacement and additional open noncovered stenting of the aortic arch. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for acute DeBakey type I dissection receiving solely hemiarch replacement (2015–2022) or additional open noncovered stenting of the aortic arch (2018–2022) using the ‘Ascyrus Medical Dissection Stent’ (AMDS) were included. After propensity score matching, the groups were compared in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 261 patients (155 hemiarch, 106 AMDS) were included. After matching, the cohort comprised 2 balanced groups with 108 patients (54 each group): 30-day mortality was 19% in the hemiarch group versus 15% in the AMDS group [P = 0.61, odds ratio (OR) = 0.77 (confidence interval (CI) 0.27–2.12)]. New postoperative stroke [P = 0.99, OR = 0.98 (CI 0.11–8.43)] and revision for malperfusion did not differ [P = 0.38, OR = 1.70 (CI 0.53–5.99)]. The incidence of new distal anastomotic entries was significantly lower in the AMDS group with 17% vs 45% in the hemiarch group [P = 0.028, OR = 0.35 (CI 0.13–0.87)]. True lumen expansion was significantly improved in the aortic arch [P = 0.006, OR = 3.15 (CI 1.41–7.34)] and stented portion of the descending aorta [P < 0.001, OR = 8.51 (CI 3.65–21.24)] as well as false lumen thrombosis in the aortic arch [P = 0.048, OR = 2.24 (CI 1.02–5.07)]. Two-year survival did not differ (P = 0.170). CONCLUSIONS: Additional AMDS implantation shows similar clinical outcomes, reduces the risk for new distal anastomotic entries and may be associated with superior positive aortic remodelling in the aortic arch and stented portion of the descending aorta. Long-term results regarding aortic remodelling and reintervention rate are highly needed.