(1) Objective: Bacterial resistance to conventional antibiotic therapy is an increasingly significant worldwide challenge to human health. The objective is to evaluate whether bacteriophage therapy could complement or be a viable alternative to conventional antibiotic therapy in critical cases of bacterial infection related to cardiothoracic surgery. (2) Methods: Since September 2015, eight patients with multi-drug resistant or especially recalcitrant Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Escherichia coli infections were treated with bacteriophage preparations as a therapy of last resort according to Article 37 of the Declaration of Helsinki. Patients had infections associated with immunosuppression after organ transplantation or had infections of vascular grafts, implanted medical devices, and surgical wounds. Individualized phage preparations were administered locally, orally, or via inhalation for different durations depending on the case. All patients remained on conventional antibiotics during bacteriophage treatment. (3) Results: Patients ranged in age from 13 to 66 years old (average 48.5 ± 16.7) with seven males and one female. Eradication of target bacteria was reached in seven of eight patients. No severe adverse side effects were observed. (4) Conclusions: Phage therapy can effectively treat bacterial infections related to cardiothoracic surgery when conventional antibiotic therapy fails.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with acute aortic dissection involving the arch and the descending aorta (AADA DeBakey type I), performing a total aortic arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure for supposedly better long-term results is still controversial. METHODS: From February 2004 to April 2016, 94 patients with AADA DeBakey type I had an FET procedure (80% men, age 58 ± 12 years). During the early period (Group 1, 2004–10), the FET technique was performed using non-branched grafts. Thirty-two percent (9/28) underwent concomitant aortic valve-sparing root procedures. More recently (Group 2, 2010–16), branched FET grafts were used in 66 patients (76% men, age: 56 ± 12 years). Fifty-six percent (37/66) underwent concomitant aortic valve-sparing root procedures. RESULTS: Patients showed a high rate of malperfusion syndrome (Group 1: 29% vs Group 2: 38%, P = 0.48). In-hospital mortality was 12% (Group 1: 21% vs Group 2: 9%, P = 0.17). Stroke and rethoracotomy for bleeding occurred in 15% (Group 1: 11% vs Group 2: 17%) and 20% (Group 1: 21% vs Group 2: 20%; P = 1.00) of patients, respectively. Postoperative recurrent nerve palsy and spinal cord injury rates were 18% (Group 1: 14% vs Group 2: 20%) and 5% (Group 1: 7% vs Group 2: 5%; P = 0.63). During follow-up, 11 patients (12%) required reoperation on the downstream aorta (open surgical: n = 6/94, 6%, endovascular: n = 5/94; 5%). Survival tended to be superior in Group 2 (5 years: Group 1: 68% vs Group 2: 80%; P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The FET procedure improves short- and long-term outcome, especially for AADA DeBakey I with malperfusion.

OBJECTIVES Myocardial protection with cardioplegia alone may be inadequate during complex aortic arch surgery, potentially resulting in postoperative myocardial insufficiency. We hypothesized that non-cardioplegic continuous myocardial perfusion (CMP) is feasible and safe to protect the heart while operating on the aortic arch, and improves cardiac outcome. METHODS Between April 2010 and April 2014, 144 patients (60% male, age: 60 ± 13 years) underwent complex aortic arch repair in our institution using prefabricated, branched aortic arch grafts. In 36 patients, the hearts were protected with a combination of cardioplegic cardiac arrest during cardiac procedures and subsequent non-cardioplegic CMP group during aortic arch repair. In 108 patients, myocardial protection was achieved by cardioplegic arrest (CA group) only. RESULTS Preoperative risk factors were comparable in both groups. Acute aortic dissection was the indication for surgery in 42% (CMP) and 44% (CA) of patients; 22% (CMP) and 29% (CA) of patients underwent reoperations. Concomitant cardiac procedures were similar. CMP patients received a frozen elephant trunk more frequently (89 vs 66%, P = 0.0096). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (242 ± 50 vs 264 ± 68 min; P = 0.046), and cardiac ischaemic time (49 ± 32 vs 149 ± 56 min, P < 0.0001) were significantly lower in the CMP group. There were no conversions to CA in the CMP group. Aortic arch repair was not prolonged by CMP. Low cardiac output syndrome occurred less frequently in the CMP group (3 vs 22%, P = 0.0052). Thirty-day mortality was significantly lower in the CMP group (6 vs 21%, P = 0.040). There were no cardiac deaths in the CMP group (0 vs 9%, P = 0.067). Neurological outcome was comparable. Blood loss was higher in the CA group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Routinely protecting the heart during complex aortic arch repair with non-cardioplegic CMP is a valuable new concept. The CMP technique is feasible and safe, does not prolong aortic arch repair, reduces myocardial damage and improves cardiac outcome. Further evaluation in a larger patient cohort is warranted to establish this novel technique.

OBJECTIVES Aortic arch surgery is associated with substantial perioperative risks. New prostheses as well as novel perfusion techniques have been developed to reduce the risks of these procedures. The routine application of these new techniques warrants reassessment of risk factors of aortic arch repair. METHODS Between April 2010 and December 2015, 199 patients [61% male, median age 63 years (interquartile range 52–70 years)] underwent total aortic arch repair in our institution. Forty-four per cent of the patients presented with acute aortic dissections (ADs, 32% with malperfusion), 22% with chronic aortic dissections (CDs), 34% with degenerative aneurysms, 24% underwent reoperations. Our surgical technique involved cold blood cardioplegia for cardiac procedures, non-cardioplegic continuous myocardial blood perfusion during aortic arch repair and early lower body reperfusion after distal aortic arch reconstruction. Anastomosis of head vessels is performed at the end of the procedure. RESULTS Forty-four per cent of patients underwent aortic root surgery, 90% received a classical elephant trunk (ET) or frozen elephant trunk (FET). Median (interquartile range) cardiopulmonary bypass time, cardiac ischaemia time, hypothermic circulatory arrest time and selective antegrade cerebral perfusion time were 248 min (204–302), 105 min (51–150), 47 min (35–61) and 93 min (72–115), respectively. Operative mortality was 16%, stroke occurred in 10%, dialysis in 21% and spinal cord injury in 5%. Independent risk factors for mortality were age, rethoracotomy for bleeding, postoperative dialysis, maximum lactate value and maximum creatinine kinase-MB (CK-MB) value. ‘Beating heart’ aortic arch surgery significantly reduced the risk of mortality. Malperfusion syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting were preoperative predictors of stroke. CD, preoperative renal dysfunction, operation time, rethoracotomy for bleeding and low cardiac output syndrome were risk factors for postoperative dialysis. Freedom from aortic reoperation was 91% (AD), 66% (CD) and 70% (aneurysm) after 2 years. CONCLUSIONS Aortic arch repair remains a high-risk procedure, especially in multisegment aortic disease. Several peri- and postoperative factors predicted adverse outcome, indicating the need to further improve perioperative management (e.g. organ protection). Indications for FET treatment have to be thoroughly investigated (e.g. FET in CDs).

OBJECTIVES Treatment of infected thoracic aortic grafts is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The replacement of an infected graft is an effective strategy, yet a complex surgical endeavour, especially if the aortic root or aortic arch is involved. In situ graft-sparing surgical therapy with continuous mediastinal irrigation after surgical debridement might offer an alternative in the management of early graft infections in the thoracic aorta. METHODS Between 1996 and August 2015, 25 patients were treated in our institution for early graft infection after thoracic aortic surgery via sternotomy. In 11 patients, the infected prosthesis was replaced by a cryopreserved homograft or a biological valved pericardial xenograft. In 14 patients, an attempt to salvage the graft was made by resternotomy, aggressive debridement and subsequent continuous mediastinal antibiotic irrigation over a course of 2 weeks, accompanied by systemic antibiotic therapy. RESULTS In-hospital mortality was comparable (replacement group: 2/11 = 18%, graft-sparing group: 2/14 = 14%, P = ns). The time interval from the initial surgery was significantly shorter in the graft-sparing group (replacement group: 165 days [range 95–300 days] and graft-sparing group: 24 days [range 15–93 days], P = 0.004]. Two patients (14%), who were treated with the graft-sparing approach >100 days after the initial surgery, were retreated for infection, and 1 due to an intra-aortic infection of an aortic arch hybrid stent graft was not amenable to external irrigation (median follow-up: 1.5 years [range 1.1–2.1 years]). One patient in the replacement group (9%) was reoperated on due to homograft degeneration (median follow-up: 6.0 years [3.0–8.9 years]). CONCLUSIONS In situ graft-sparing surgical therapy is safe and effective if diagnosis and treatment of aortic graft infection is initiated promptly and aggressively (ideally 3–6 months after surgery, replacement of grafts with biological conduits (homografts or pericardial xenografts) most likely remains the best treatment option.