Outcomes of Reoperative Aortic Root Replacement After Previous Acute Type A Dissection Repair

Redo aortic root - complexity vs simplicity with choice of device selected

INTRODUCTION

The field of cardiac surgery continues to evolve significantly and one such example of advancement is aortic root replacement. In the setting of prior cardiac surgery, operative complexity increases due to adhesions, surgically-altered anatomy, and previously implanted prosthetic graft material. Device choice plays a significant role in balancing operative complexity with achieving simplicity and optimal clinical outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This review explores the critical considerations necessary in performing redo aortic root surgery and the impact that device selection can have on the procedural complexity and clinical outcomes. This review was formulated by a systematic identification of published and unpublished laboratory and clinical studies evaluating these technologies.

EXPERT OPINION

Redo aortic root surgery represents one of the most challenging procedures in cardiac surgery, and the choice of both surgical technique and prosthetic device used are critical factors which influence the clinical success of the operation and the long-term outcomes for patients. By understanding the unique challenges of root replacement in a reoperative setting and the characteristics of different prosthetic devices, a tailored approach must be employed toward the best possible outcomes.

Cabrol procedure and its modifications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Cabrol procedure has undergone various modifications and developments since its invention. However, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding meta-analyses assessing it.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and long-term outcomes of the Cabrol procedure and its modifications. Pooling was conducted using random effects model. Outcome events were reported as linearized occurrence rates (percentage per patient-year) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies involving 833 patients (mean age: 50.8 years; 68.0% male) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled all-cause early mortality was 9.0% (66 patients), and the combined rate of reoperation due to bleeding was 4.9% (17 patients). During the average 4.4-year follow-up (3,727.3 patient-years), the annual occurrence rates (linearized) for complications were as follows: 3.63% (2.79-4.73) for late mortality, 0.64% (0.35-1.16) for aortic root reoperation, 0.57% (0.25-1.31) for hemorrhage events, 0.66% (0.16-2.74) for thromboembolism, 0.60% (0.29-1.26) for endocarditis, 2.32% (1.04-5.16) for major valve-related adverse events, and 0.58% (0.34-1.00) for Cabrol-related coronary graft complications.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides evidence that the outcomes of the Cabrol procedure and its modifications are acceptable in terms of mortality, reoperation, anticoagulation, and valve-related complications, especially in Cabrol-related coronary graft complications. Notably, the majority of Cabrol procedures were performed in reoperations and complex cases. Furthermore, the design and anastomosis of the Dacron interposition graft for coronary reimplantation, considering natural anatomy and physiological hemodynamics, may promise future advancements in this field.

Zone 2 arch repair for acute type A dissection: Evolution from arch-first to proximal-first repair

Objective

With growing experience of acute type A aortic dissection repair, Zone 2 arch repair has been advocated. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome between "proximal-first" and "arch-first" Zone 2 repair.

Methods

From January 2015 to March 2023, 45 patients underwent Zone 2 arch repair out of 208 acute type A aortic dissection repairs: arch-first, N = 19, and proximal-first technique, N = 26, since January 2021. Indications were aortic arch or descending tear, complex dissection in neck vessels, cerebral malperfusion, or aneurysm of the aortic arch.

Results

The lowest bladder temperature was higher in the proximal-first technique (24.9 °C vs 19.7 °C, P < .001). Cardiopulmonary bypass (230 vs 177.5 minutes, P < .001), myocardial ischemic (124 vs 91 minutes, P < .001), and lower-body circulatory arrest (87 vs 28 minutes, P < .001) times were shorter in the proximal-first technique. The arch-first group required more packed red blood cells (arch-first, 2 units vs proximal-first, 0 units, P = .048), platelets (arch-first, 4 units vs proximal-first, 2 units, P = .003), and cryoprecipitates (arch-first, 2 units vs proximal-first, 1 unit, P = .024). Operative mortality and major morbidities were higher in the arch-first group (57.9% vs 11.5%, P = .001). One-year survival was comparable (arch-first, 89.5% ± 7.0% vs proximal-first, 92.0% ± 5.5%, P = .739). Distal intervention was successfully performed in 5 patients (endovascular, N = 3, and open repair, N = 2).

Conclusions

Zone 2 arch repair using the proximal-first technique for acute type A aortic dissection repair yields shorter lower-body ischemic time with a warmer core temperature, resulting in shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time, less blood product use, and fewer morbidities when compared with the arch-first technique.