Background: Cardiac surgery often represents the only treatment option in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). However, IE surgery may lead to a sudden release of inflammatory mediators, which is associated with the severity of postoperative organ dysfunction. We investigated the impact of hemoadsorption during IE surgery on postoperative organ dysfunction. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, non-blinded, controlled trial assigned patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE to hemoadsorption [integration of CytoSorb® to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)] or control. The Primary outcome (ΔSOFA) was defined as the difference between the mean total postoperative sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA), calculated maximally to the 9th postoperative day, and the basal SOFA score. The analysis was by modified intention-to-treat. A predefined inter-group comparison was done using a linear mixed model for ΔSOFA including surgeon and baseline SOFA as fixed effect covariates and with the surgical center as random effect. The SOFA score assesses dysfunction in six organ systems, each scored from zero to four. Higher scores indicate worsening dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, durations of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor and renal replacement therapy. Cytokines were measured in the first 50 patients. Results: Between January 17, 2018 and January 31, 2020, A total of 288 patients were randomly assigned to hemoadsorption (n=142) or control (n=146). Four patients in the hemoadsorption and two in the control group were excluded as they did not undergo surgery. The primary outcome ΔSOFA did not differ between the hemoadsorption and the control group (1.79 ± 3.75 and 1.93 ± 3.53, respectively, 95% CI: −1.30 to 0.83, p=0.6766). Mortality at 30 days (21% hemoadsorption vs 22% control, p=0.782), the durations of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor and renal replacement therapy did not differ between groups. Levels of IL-1β and IL-18 at the end of CPB were significantly lower in the hemoadsorption than in the control group. Conclusions: This randomized trial failed to demonstrate a reduction in postoperative organ dysfunction through intraoperative hemoadsorption in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE. Although hemoadsorption reduced plasma cytokines at the end of CPB, there was no difference in any of the clinically relevant outcome points.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to analyse outcomes of downstream thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) following the frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure. METHODS Sixty-six patients underwent downstream TEVAR following the FET procedure to treat thoracic aortic dissections (n = 42, 64%), aneurysms (n = 19, 29%) or penetrating aortic ulcers involving the aortic arch (n = 5, 8%). Patient and outcome characteristics were analysed. RESULTS Downstream TEVAR was performed 7 [interquartile range: 2–18] months after the FET procedure in 39 male (59%) and 27 female (41%) patients aged 68 [interquartile range: 56, 75] years, including 11 patients (17%) with a connective tissue disease. Before TEVAR, cerebrospinal fluid drainage was put in place in 61 patients (92%). Patients were treated with 1 stent graft (n = 28, 42%), 2 stent grafts (n = 37, 56%) or 3 stent grafts (n = 1, 2%). The femoral artery was accessed through surgical cut-down (n = 15, 23%) or percutaneously (n = 49, 74%). One patient (2%) developed a temporary spinal cord injury that resolved spontaneously. No case of permanent spinal cord injury, stroke or death was observed. After 12 [interquartile range: 2–23] months, 15 patients required an additional aortic reintervention (endovascular: n = 6; surgical: n = 9). CONCLUSIONS Downstream TEVAR following the FET procedure is associated with excellent clinical outcomes. We thus maintain that staging thoracic aortic repair—FET and secondary TEVAR—is a very successful and safe strategy. Certain patients might need a tertiary procedure to fix their entire aortic pathology; therefore, they will require long-term continuous follow-up, ideally in a dedicated aortic clinic.

Outcome after classical surgical repair of acute Type A aortic dissection has steadily improved over the years and several modifications in cannulation and perfusion added to this achievement. However, subgroups remain where results of classical surgical repair still have room for improvement, particularly patients with severe preoperative malperfusion as well as elderly patients with a limited physiological reserve. So far, only small case series or case reports have been published on the endovascular treatment of dissected ascending aortas. However, a tube alone is not sufficient to fix the entire complex underlying problem in the vast majority of patients with acute Type A aortic dissection. In addition, these published reports are either due to a favorable anatomy or due to very localized disease processes, which are the exception and not the rule. The concept of an endovascular valve-carrying conduit may significantly increase the number of patients suitable for endovascular therapy and it may soon be common practice.

"" This motto still remains the most important directive. However, also depending onto the extent of the underlying pathology and consecutively depending onto the extent of primary surgery, there is and will be need for additional classical surgical or interventional treatment sooner or later during follow-up in a substantial number of patients having had surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. This article shall guide the interested reader through the underlying mechanisms as well as treatment options in patients with chronic type B "residual" after type A repair and shall finally suggest preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of this pathology to a minimum.

Objectives Surgery of the aortic root in acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) remains a topic of vague evidence since the extend of dissection and surgeons’ capability and interpretation of the disease vary remarkably. We aimed to interpret root operation strategies in the German Registry for Acute Aortic Dissection (GERAADA) cohort. Patients and Methods GERAADA collected the data of 56 centers between July 2006 and June 2015. A total of 3382 patients undergoing operations for AADA were included and divided into three groups according to aortic root procedure types: supracommissural replacement (SCR), conduit replacement (CR) and valve sparing root replacement (VSRR). Results Patients in SCR (2425, 71.7%) were significantly older than CR (681, 20.1%) and VSRR (276, 8.2%) (63.4 vs 57.5 vs 54.2 yrs; p < 0.001), more female (38.9 vs 32.0 vs 26.1%; p < 0.001) and presented with less aortic regurgitation (26.3 vs 57.1 vs 56.5%; p < 0.001). VSRR presented with slightly less multiple organ malperfusion (11.6 vs 12.0 vs 10.9%; p = 0.045) and were more often diagnosed for Marfan syndrome (2.4 vs 5.1 vs 9.1%; p < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was lower for VSRR (11.6%) compared to SCR (16.1%) and CR (19.8%; p = 0.010). Despite longer procedural times multivariable regression showed no influence of total arch replacement for VSRR on mortality compared to CR (OR 0.264; 95% CI, 0.033–2.117; p = 0.21). Conclusions SCR remains the procedure of choice in elderly and compromised patients. Extended root preservation techniques may be applied even in combination with extended aortic arch surgery for selected patients for AADA with promising early outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to analyse outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair to treat aortic rupture. METHODS Patient and outcome characteristics of all emergent endovascular treatments for thoracic aortic rupture between January 2009 and December 2019 were analysed. RESULTS Thoracic aortic rupture occurred in patients with aortic aneurysms (n = 42, 49%), aortic dissection (n = 13, 16%) or after trauma (n = 30, 35%). Preoperative cerebrospinal fluid drainage was placed in 9 patients (11%) and 18 patients (21%) underwent perioperative supra-aortic transposition. The proximal landing zones were: zone 1 (n = 1, 1%), zone 2 (n = 23, 27%), zone 3 (n = 52, 61%) and zone 4 (n = 9, 11%). Temporary spinal cord injury occurred in 1 patient (1%), permanent spinal cord injury in 7 patients (8%). Two patients (2%) experienced a postoperative stroke. Seventeen patients (20%) expired in-hospital. Aortic dissection (odds ratio: 16.246, p = 0.001), aneurysm (odds ratio: 9.090, P = 0.003) and preoperative shock (odds ratio: 4.646, P < 0.001) were predictive for mortality. Eighteen patients (21%) required a stent-graft-related aortic reintervention for symptomatic supra-aortic malperfusion (n = 3, 4%), endoleaks (n = 6, 7%), a second aortic rupture (n = 4, 5%), retrograde type A aortic dissection (n = 2, 2%), aortic-oesophageal fistulation (n = 2, 2%) and stent-graft kinking (n = 1, 1%). CONCLUSIONS Thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with aortic rupture has become a valuable treatment modality to stabilize patients. However, a significant risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality remains, particularly in patients with aortic dissections, aneurysms or shock. Patients require thorough follow-up ideally in an aortic clinic with a staff having the entire spectrum of cardiovascular and thoracic surgical expertise.