Background: Acute Stanford type A aortic dissection is a severe emergency condition that, if left untreated, is associated with a high mortality rate. The extent of surgical repair may impact the outcomes of these patients. Method: Patients operated for acute type A aortic dissection from a multicentre European registry were included. Patients were categorized based on the following types of surgical intervention: isolated ascending aortic replacement, ascending aortic replacement with concomitant aortic valve replacement, aortic root replacement, partial or total arch replacement, and partial or total arch replacement with concomitant aortic root replacement. The primary outcome was mortality rate, both in-hospital and at 10 years. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, neurological complications, a composite endpoint including in-hospital death, neurological complications and/or dialysis, and proximal endovascular or surgical aortic re-operations at 10 years. Results: 3702 patients were included. The adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in all subsets of patients compared to those who underwent isolated ascending aortic replacement. The adjusted rates of in-hospital mortality ranged from 16.4% (95% c.i. 15.3 to 17.4) among patients who underwent isolated ascending aortic replacement to 27.7% (95% c.i. 23.3 to 31.2) among those who underwent aortic arch and concomitant aortic root replacement. The adjusted risks of neurological complications, renal replacement therapy and of the composite endpoint were significantly higher in patients who underwent partial/total aortic arch replacement. The adjusted risk estimates of 10-year mortality rate were markedly higher in patients who underwent partial/total aortic arch replacement with or without concomitant aortic root replacement. Extensive aortic repair did not significantly reduce the risk of distal or proximal aortic reoperations. Conclusion: These findings suggest that, when feasible, limiting the extent of aortic replacement for acute type A aortic dissection may be beneficial in reducing mortality rate and major complications both in the short and long term. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04831073.

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.

: OBJECTIVES: The best treatment for rheumatic mitral regurgitation is still under debate. Our goal was to assess the long-term results of mitral repair for rheumatic mitral regurgitation performed in 2 referral centres for mitral repair. METHODS: Patients who underwent mitral valve repair between 1999 and 2009 were selected. Preoperative and postoperative data were prospectively entered into a dedicated database and retrospectively reviewed. Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to analyse long-term survival. Competing risk analysis was performed by calculating the cumulative incidence function for time to recurrence of mitral regurgitation ≥3+, mitral regurgitation ≥2+, mitral reoperation and the combined end point of repair failure (mitral regurgitation ≥ 3+ and/or mean gradient ≥ 10 mmHg and/or mitral valve REDO) with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were included. Mitral calcifications were present in 25 patients (34.7%). Most of the patients (65/72, 90.3%) underwent annuloplasty, and mixes of reparative techniques were used in 21 patients (29.2%). In-hospital mortality was 2.8%. Mean follow-up was 11.6 ± 5.16 (max 19.1 years), 98.6% completed. Survival at 14 years was 70 ± 6.27%. At 14 years, the cumulative incidence function of repair failure was 36.7 ± 6.52%. The presence of severe mitral annulus calcification was an independent predictor of repair failure. CONCLUSIONS: Mitral repair for rheumatic mitral regurgitation is characterized by a high rate of failure in the long term (14 years), particularly in patients with severe annular calcifications. These results call for a very selective approach when considering a repair strategy in this setting, especially in case of unfavourable anatomical conditions.