No abstract

Cardiovascular disease represents a significant portion of pregnancy‐related complications and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality in this cohort. Cardiac valvulopathy, and aortic valve pathologies, in particular, pose a significant challenge to women who are pregnant and to the health care professionals who look after them. Depending on the type and severity of aortic valve pathology, pregnancy may exacerbate or accelerate the progression of valvulopathy sequelae because of the hemodynamic changes that occur from conception, throughout gestation, up to Labor and postpartum. Management of such patients ranges from basic conservative measures such as bed‐rest, extending to high‐risk emergency open heart surgery. This nonstructured review aims to highlight the current evidence available relating to the management of aortic valve disease in pregnancy, with a key focus on cases which requires intervention beyond that of medical therapy. In conclusion, the management of aortic valvulopathy in pregnancy is a challenging field with only a small amount of clinical experience and retrospective study supporting evidence‐based decisions in this field. A greater understanding of the most recent advances is recommended to support decision making in this specialist field of clinical medicine.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. Methods: A comprehensive search was undertaken of the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing open vs endovascular repair. Databases were evaluated to July 2018. Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed. The primary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, and 30-day mortality rates; secondary outcomes were requirement for reintervention and 1-year and five-year mortality rates. Results: A total of 1968 patients were analyzed in 21 articles. TEVAR was performed in 29% (n ¼ 578) and open repair in 71% (n ¼ 1390). TEVAR and open repair did not differ in the mean age of patients (42.1 6 14 years vs 44.1 6 14 years; P ¼ .48). There was no difference in duration of intensive care and total hospital stay between TEVAR and open repair groups (12.7 6 11.1 days vs 12.6 6 8 days [P ¼ .35] and 27.5 6 14.6 days vs 25.9 6 11 days [P ¼ .80], respectively). Similarly, no statistically significant difference in postoperative paraplegia or stroke rate was noted between TEVAR and open repair (1.4% vs 2.3% [OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.59-2.70; P ¼ .54] and 1% vs 0.5% [OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.18-2.18; P ¼ .46]). Lower 30-day and 1-year mortality was noted in TEVAR (7.9% vs 20% [OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.92-4.49; P < .00001] and 8.7% vs 17% [OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.99-4.52; P ¼ .05]). There was no difference in 5-year mortality (23% vs 17%; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, À0.07 to 0.20; P ¼ .33). However, there was a higher rate of reintervention at 1 year in the endovascular group (0% vs 6%; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.96; P ¼ .04). Conclusions: TEVAR carries lower in-hospital mortality and provides satisfactory perioperative outcomes compared with open repair in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. It also provides a favorable 1-year survival at the expense of higher reintervention rates.

No abstract

Coronary artery bypass grafting is a key cardiac surgery procedure and is the main treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The most frequently used conduit for this procedure is the long saphenous vein (LSV). The technique of harvesting the LSV has evolved over the last 30 years from total open harvesting to endoscopic with minimal access technique. The most important determining factor for success in coronary artery surgery is the graft patency rate. The literature evidence behind each technique has been reported at different levels and there is an ongoing debate about which technique can provide optimum vein patency over the long term. This literature review aims to summarize the current evidence, the implications involved with the use of each technique for harvesting LSV and the patency rate at variable follow‐up intervals.

Objective To review the currently available literature to define the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with connective tissue disorders (CTD). Methods A comprehensive electronic database search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Google scholar, and OVID to identify all the articles that reported on outcomes of utilizing TEVAR in patients with CTD during elective and emergency settings. The search was not limited to time or language of the published study. Results All the relevant studies have been summarized in its correspondence section. The outcomes were analyzed in narrative format. The role of TEVAR has been elaborated as per each study. Currently, there is limited large cohort size studies outlining the use of TEVAR in patients with CTD. The use of endovascular repair in patients with CTD is limited due to progressive aortic dilatations and high possibility of further reinterventions at later stage of life. Conclusion Open repair remains the gold standard method of intervention in young patients with progressive CTD, especially in the setting of acute type A aortic dissection. However, TEVAR can be sought as a reliable alternative in emergency setting of diseases involving the descending thoracic aorta; yet the long-term data needs to be published to support such practice.

Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) carries high morbidity and mortality rates and is a clinical emergency. The reported mortality rate is 50% to 65% within the first 48 hours without surgical intervention. Open surgery therefore remains the gold standard management for ATAAD. However, in patients who are deemed unfit for surgery and where possible, endovascular repair offers a useful alternative to medical treatment alone or high-risk open surgical repair. Several case reports, case series, and retrospective studies have reported good outcomes following endovascular treatment. The endovascular option also has comparable early and late outcomes, favourable aortic remodelling, and satisfactory overall survival despite having a higherrisk patient cohort. However, stenting in patients with ATAAD undoubtedly still has several limitations and technical challenges.

levels were the most sensitive markers of CHF and so predictive of alerts, leading to early and increased frequency of Heart Failure Nurse contact and significant intervention, possibly helping in prevention of hospitalisation and in turn conservation of valuable financial resources.