OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate early- and mid-term outcome and aortic remodelling in patients undergoing implantation of 2 different frozen elephant trunk prostheses, either the Thoraflex™ hybrid (Vascutek, Inchinnan, UK) and the E-vita Open (Jotec Inc., Hechingen, Germany) for acute aortic dissection. METHODS All consecutive patients [n = 88; median age 59 (49–67) years; 69% male] undergoing surgery with a frozen elephant trunk prosthesis for acute aortic dissection from August 2005 until March 2018 were included in this study. The Thoraflex™ device was implanted in 55 patients and the E-vita Open graft in 33 patients. RESULTS Preoperative characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. There was also no statistically significant difference in postoperative outcome: in-hospital mortality (11% vs 12%; P > 0.99), stroke (18% vs 6%; P = 0.12) and spinal cord injury (6% vs 6%; P > 0.99). While there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of distal stent graft-induced new entries (16% vs 18%; P = 0.77), there was a significantly higher rate of secondary endovascular aortic interventions in the Thoraflex™ hybrid group (22% vs 0%; P = 0.003). There was a trend towards a higher rate of false lumen thrombosis at the level of the stent graft (74% vs 95%; P = 0.085) and was comparable at the thoraco-abdominal transition (53% vs 80%; P = 0.36) 1 year after implantation of the prostheses. CONCLUSIONS In this comparison of 2 frozen elephant trunk prostheses, there is no evidence that different surgical techniques influence in-hospital outcome. At 1-year follow-up, patients who underwent implantation of the E-vita Open prosthesis showed a significantly reduced rate of secondary aortic interventions and a trend towards a higher rate of false lumen thrombosis which might be attributed to a longer coverage of the descending aorta due to a longer stent graft design and significantly more frequent implantation in zone 3.

Background Gastrointestinal complications following on-pump cardiac surgery are orphan but serious risk factors for postoperative morbidity and mortality. We aimed to assess incidence, perioperative risk factors, treatment modalities and outcomes. Material and methods A university medical center audit comprised 4883 consecutive patients (median age 69 [interquartile range IQR 60–76] years, 33% female, median logistic EuroScore 5 [IQR 3–11]) undergoing all types of cardiac surgery including surgery on the thoracic aorta; patients undergoing repair of congenital heart disease, implantation of assist devices or cardiac transplantation were excluded. Coronary artery disease was the leading indication for on-pump cardiac surgery (60%), patients undergoing cardiac surgery under urgency or emergency setting were included in analysis. We identified a total of 142 patients with gastrointestinal complications. To identify intra- and postoperative predictors for gastrointestinal complications, we applied a 1:1 propensity score matching procedure based on a logistic regression model. Results Overall, 30-day mortality for the entire cohort was 5.4%; the incidence of gastrointestinal complications was 2.9% and median time to complication 8 days (IQR 4–12). Acute pancreatitis (n = 41), paralytic ileus (n = 14) and acute cholecystitis (n = 18) were the leading pathologies. Mesenteric ischemia and gastrointestinal bleeding accounted for 16 vs. 18 cases, respectively. While 72 patients (51%) could be managed conservatively, 27 patients required endoscopic/radiological (19%) or surgical intervention (43/142 patients, 30%); overall 30-day mortality was 12.1% (p<0.001). Propensity score matching identified prolonged skin-to-skin times (p = 0.026; Odds Ratio OR 1.003, 95% Confidence Interval CI 1.000–1.007) and extended on-pump periods (p = 0.010; OR 1.006, 95%CI 1.001–1.011) as significant perioperative risk factors. Comment Prolonged skin-to-skin times and extended on-pump periods are important perioperative risk factors regardless of preoperative risk factors.

OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to compare the conventional frozen elephant trunk implantation technique with a modified implantation technique with an aortic anastomosis in zone 1 and extra-anatomic revascularization of the left subclavian artery during reperfusion. METHODS Between May 2014 and March 2018, 40 patients (26 male; mean age 60.2 ± 11.2 years) underwent complete aortic arch replacement with the Thoraflex Hybrid prosthesis™ (Vascutek, Inchinnan, Scotland) at our institution. Seventeen patients underwent conventional arch replacement (group 1) and 23 patients the modified procedure (group 2). Indication for arch replacement included all types of acute and chronic diseases. RESULTS Cardiopulmonary bypass time (213.1 ± 53.5 vs 243.8 ± 67.0 min, P = 0.13) and aortic cross-clamp time (114.4 ± 40.7 vs 117.3 ± 56.6 min, P = 0.86) did not differ significantly between group 1 and 2. There was a trend towards a shorter circulatory arrest time (50.72 ± 9.6 vs 44.7 ± 15.5 min; P = 0.20) in group 2. Perioperative mortality was 10% (5.9% vs 13%; P = 0.62). Stroke occurred in 10% (5.9% vs 13%; P = 0.62) of patients. Spinal cord injury occurred in 7.5% of patients (11.8% vs 4.3% P = 0.57). Due to the a proximal aortic anastomosis, there was a significantly shorter coverage of the descending aorta with the prosthesis ending at vertebral level Th7.5 (6.75–8) in group 1 versus Th6.0 (5.0–6.0) in group 2 (P-value = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS Implantation of the frozen elephant trunk prosthesis in zone 1 allows for a more proximal aortic anastomosis that could make the procedure more feasible especially in patients with difficult anatomies or in an acute setting.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures. METHODS Forty departments shared their data on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures between January and May 2020 and January and May 2019 in Europe, Asia and the USA. Admission rates as well as delay from onset of symptoms to referral were compared. RESULTS No differences in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures were observed between 2020 and the reference period in 2019 [incidence rates ratio (IRR): 0.96, confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.04; P = 0.39]. Also, no difference in the time interval from acute onset of symptoms to referral was recorded (<12 h 32% vs > 12 h 68% in 2020, < 12 h 34% vs > 12 h 66% in 2019 P = 0.29). Conversely, a decline of 35% in elective procedures was seen (IRR: 0.81, CI 0.76–0.87; P < 0.001) with substantial differences between countries and the most pronounced decline in Italy (−40%, P < 0.001). Interestingly, in Switzerland, an increase in the number of elective cases was observed (+35%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS There was no change in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic cases and procedures during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the case load of elective operations and procedures decreased significantly. Patients with acute aortic syndromes presented despite COVID-19 and were managed according to current guidelines. Further analysis is required to prove that deferral of elective cases had no impact on premature mortality.