Background: The number of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and being untreatable by interventional cardiologists increased during the last years. Previous experience in emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in these patients spurred us towards a more liberal acceptance for surgery. Following a prospective protocol, patients were operated on and further analysed. Methods: Within a two year interval, 127 patients (38 female, age 68±12 years, EuroScore (ES) II 6.7±7.2%) presenting with AMI (86 non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 41 STEMI) were immediately accepted for emergency CABG and operated on within six hours after cardiac catheterisation (77% three-vessel-disease, 47% left main stem stenosis, 11% cardiogenic shock, 21% preoperative intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), left ventricular ejection fraction 48±15%). Results: 30-day-mortality was 6% (8 patients, 2 NSTEMI (2%) 6 STEMI (15%), p=0.014). Complete revascularisation could be achieved in 80% of the patients using 2±1 grafts and 3±1 distal anastomoses. In total, 66% were supported by IABP, extracorporal life support (ECLS) systems were implanted in two patients. Logistic regression analysis revealed the ES II as an independent risk factor for mortality (p<0.001, HR 1.216, 95%-CI-Intervall 1.082-1.366). Conclusions: Quo ad vitam, results of emergency CABG for patients presenting with NSTEMI can be compared with those of elective revascularisation. Complete revascularisation obviously offers a clear benefit for the patients. Mortality in patients presenting with STEMI and cardiogenic shock is substantially high. For these patients, other concepts regarding timing of surgical revascularisation and bridging until surgery need to be taken into consideration.

The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients undergoing open arch repair who would be anatomically suitable for multi-branched endovascular arch repair. This study was a single-centre review of patients undergoing open arch repair between 2000 and 2020. Anatomical feasibility was determined by comparing arch measurements to the anatomical criteria of the Zenith^® double and triple inner branched-arch endografts (Cook Medical) and the Relay^® double arch branched device (Terumo-Aortic). Ninety (90) patients were included in this study, with 43/90 presenting degenerative aneurysm. The distance between the sinotubular junction and the brachiocephalic trunk measured 114 ± 30 mm on the outer curvature, and the maximum diameter of the proximal landing zone (PLZ) was 41 ± 11mm. A total of 42/90 patients (47%) were anatomically suitable for at least 1 stent graft and 29/90 patients (32%) were eligible for a triple-branched endograft. The most important determinant factors of anatomical suitability were the PLZ diameter (Cramer’s V = 0.743, P < 0.001) and length (Cramer’s V = 0.777, P < 0.001). This study shows that the proportion of patients who may be anatomically suitable for branched-arch repair remains limited. The PLZ dimensions tend to be the most important anatomical limitations and should receive more emphasis in the development of branched-arch devices.

Increasing rates of bacterial infections in device therapy of cardiac rhythm disturbances pose a clinical problem. Radical surgical treatment yields the best long-term results but is frequently preceded by conservative treatment or limited surgical procedures leading to an unnecessary long treatment course. Recurrence/persistence of infection then potentially poses an even more serious clinical problem. A total of 192 consecutive explantation procedures were performed for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections over a 10 year period. Forty-nine cases followed recurrence of infection subsequent to prior surgical treatment for device infection. Differences in patient/disease characteristics and outcome were looked for in recurrent as compared to primary infections (referral mode) to identify a potential requirement for adjusting treatment in recurrence. With a minimum follow-up of 24 months, 98% eradication of infection was observed independent of referral mode. Differences between primary and recurrent infection essentially reflected the primary presenting clinical picture—chronic smouldering vs. acute systemic infection. Various parameters that follow from this differentiation are significantly different between the groups. There was however no difference in outcome in terms of mortality and rate of recurrence. In addition, the parameters of the extraction procedure did not differ considerably. Despite significant differences in baseline and disease characteristics between primary and recurrent CIED infection, a standardized radical protocol results in an equally high success rate in eradicating infection in both groups. Nevertheless, direct and un-delayed referral of patients with suspected CIED infection to specialized centres is recommended as it saves time for the patient.