ECMO is the most frequently used mechanical support for patients suffering from low cardiac output syndrome. Combining IABP with ECMO is believed to increase coronary artery blood flow, decrease high afterload, and restore systemic pulsatile flow conditions. This study evaluates that combined effect on coronary artery flow during various load conditions using an in vitro circuit. In doing so, different clinical scenarios were simulated, such as normal cardiac output and moderate-to-severe heart failure. In the heart failure scenarios, we used peripheral ECMO support to compensate for the lowered cardiac output value and reach a default normal value. The increase in coronary blood flow using the combined IABP-ECMO setup was more noticeable in low heart rate conditions. At baseline, intermediate and severe LV failure levels, adding IABP increased coronary mean flow by 16%, 7.5%, and 3.4% (HR 60 bpm) and by 6%, 4.5%, and 2.5% (HR 100 bpm) respectively. Based on our in vitro study results, combining ECMO and IABP in a heart failure setup further improves coronary blood flow. This effect was more pronounced at a lower heart rate and decreased with heart failure, which might positively impact recovery from cardiac failure.

The aorta, once viewed as a passive conduit, is now recognized as an active organ crucial for hemodynamic regulation and vascular homeostasis. Thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs), particularly those involving the ascending aorta, often remain silent until life-threatening complications such as dissection or rupture occur. Current management primarily relies on aortic diameter criteria, yet up to 60% of type A dissections occur at sizes below the 5.5 cm surgical threshold, revealing the limitations of this approach. This narrative review summarizes recent advances in understanding ascending aortic aneurysms, including insights into their genetic and degenerative mechanisms, the role of novel morphological and hemodynamic markers, and the potential of advanced imaging techniques. It also explores evolving surgical strategies, from conventional open repair, still the gold standard, to minimally invasive and investigational endovascular approaches. By integrating biological, morphological, and clinical factors, emerging strategies aim to move beyond diameter alone toward more personalized risk assessment. This paradigm shift may improve early detection, optimize surgical timing, and ultimately enhance outcomes for patients with ascending aortic aneurysms.

(1) Background: There is a need for a novel surrogate marker to ease decision making when facing ascending aortic dilatation. In this article, we study the ratio between ascending and descending aorta diameters as a potential one. (2) Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study, including all the patients who underwent surgery for acute type A aorta dissection (aTAAD) between January 2014 and September 2020 at our center. A total of 50 patients were included. Clinical and demographic data were collected. The anatomical measurements were made including orthogonal maximal diameters of the ascending and descending aorta, post-dissection whole circumference length (post-wCL), post-dissection true lumen circumference length (post-tCL), and surface and sphericity indices of the ascending and descending aorta. Pre-dissection ascending aorta diameter (pre-AAD) and pre-dissection descending aorta diameter (pre-DAD) were calculated as well as the ratio between them and compared with reference values. (3) Results: Of the pre-AAD patients, 96% had smaller than the recommended 55 mm. The ratio between the descending and ascending aorta pre-dissection diameters was significantly smaller compared to the reference value (0.657 ± 0.125 versus 0.745 ± 0.016 with a mean difference of −0.088 and a p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: The 55 mm threshold for aorta maximal diameter is an insufficient criterion when assessing the risk of dissection. The ratio between DAD and AAD is a parameter worthy of analysis as a tool to stratify the risk of dissection.

(1) Background: There is a need of a novel surrogate marker to ease decision making when facing ascending aortic dilatation. In this article we study the ratio between ascending and descending aorta diameters as a potential one; (2) Methods: Retrospective observational cohort study, including all the patients who have undergone surgery for aTAAD between January 2014 and September 2020 at our center. A total of 50 patients were included. Clinical and demographic data was collected. Anatomical measurements were made including orthogonal maximal diameters of the ascending and descending aorta, post-dissection whole circumference length (post-wCL), post-dissection true lumen circumference length (post-tCL), surface and sphericity index of the ascending and descending aorta. Pre-dissection ascending aorta diameter (pre-AAD) and pre-dissection descending aorta diameter (pre-DAD) were calculated as well as the ratio between them and compared with reference values; (3) Results: 96% of the patients pre-AAD was smaller than the recommended 55mm. The ratio between the descending and ascending aorta pre-dissection diameters was significantly smaller compared to the reference value (0.657±0.125 versus 0.745± 0.016 with a mean difference of -0.088 and a p<0.001); (4) Conclusions: The 55mm threshold for aorta maximal diameter is an insufficient criterion when assessing the risk of dissection. The ratio between DAD and AAD is a parameter worthy of analysis as a tool to stratify the risk of dissection.

Coronary artery anomalies (CAAs) represent a rare but clinically significant group of congenital abnormalities, often implicated in sudden cardiac death among young individuals. Despite increasing recognition, standardized diagnostic and management pathways remain underdeveloped, particularly regarding surgical intervention. This narrative review aims to synthesize current evidence on the classification, pathophysiology, and contemporary treatment options for CAAs, with a specific focus on the surgical indications and guidelines. A systematic literature search was conducted through February 2025 across PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and UpToDate, using relevant MeSH terms and keywords related to coronary anomalies, sudden cardiac death, imaging modalities, and treatment strategies. Priority was given to high-level evidence including guidelines, systematic reviews, and large observational studies, in English and French. CAAs encompass a wide anatomical and clinical spectrum. Among these, anomalies of origin and course, such as anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery (AAOCA), are now better defined and integrated into international guidelines, with surgical repair (e.g., unroofing, reimplantation, bypass) increasingly recommended in symptomatic patients or those with high-risk anatomical features. In contrast, anomalies like myocardial bridges, coronary artery fistulas, or ectasia remain controversial in both diagnosis and management, with inconsistent thresholds for medical versus surgical treatment. The variability in care stems from the lack of a unified classification system, limited prospective data, and underutilization or misinterpretation of imaging modalities such as coronary CT angiography and intravascular imaging. The management of coronary artery anomalies is evolving, particularly in the domain of surgical indications. Clear consensus exists only for select anomalies, leaving others subject to individualized, often non-standardized decisions. There is an urgent need for a harmonized diagnostic framework and outcome-based criteria to guide surgical and non-surgical interventions. A multidisciplinary, evidence-informed approach is essential to optimize outcomes and reduce the risk of sudden cardiac events.