We report four consecutive cases of Kommerell's aneurysm of an aberrant left subclavian artery in patients with a right-sided aortic arch and the results of a systematic review of the literature. In our cohort of patients, three had an aneurysm limited to the origin of the aberrant subclavian artery, causing dysphagia and cough, and one had an aneurysm involving also the distal arch and the entire descending thoracic aorta, causing compression of the right main-stem bronchus. A left subclavian-to-carotid transposition was performed in association with the intrathoracic procedure, and a right thoracotomy was used in all patients. One of the patients underwent surgery with deep hypothermia and circulatory arrest, and the others with the adjunct of a left-heart bypass. The repair was accomplished with an interposition graft in two patients and with endoaneurysmorrhaphy in the others. The postoperative course was complicated by respiratory failure and prolonged ventilation in one patient, and one patient died because of severe pulmonary emboli. The survivors are alive and well at a follow-up of 1 to 3 years. Only 32 cases of right-sided aortic arch with an aneurysm of the aberrant subclavian artery have been reported: 12 were associated with aortic dissection, and 2 presented with rupture. Surgical repair was accomplished in 29 patients. A number of operative strategies were described: right thoracotomy, bilateral thoracotomy, left thoracotomy with sternotomy, sternotomy with right thoracotomy, and left thoracotomy. In only 12 cases was the subclavian artery reconstructed. We believe that a right thoracotomy provides good exposure and avoids the morbidity associated with bilateral thoracotomy or sternotomy and thoracotomy. We feel that a left subclavian-to-carotid transposition completed before the thoracic approach revascularizes the subclavian distribution without increasing the complexity of the intrathoracic procedure.

No abstract

Objective To determine the effect of perioperative blocker treatment in patients having non-cardiac surgery. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Seven search strategies, including searching two bibliographic databases and hand searching seven medical journals. Study selection and outcomes We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated blocker treatment in patients having non-cardiac surgery. Perioperative outcomes within 30 days of surgery included total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal cardiac arrest, non-fatal stroke, congestive heart failure, hypotension needing treatment, bradycardia needing treatment, and bronchospasm. Results Twenty two trials that randomised a total of 2437 patients met the eligibility criteria. Perioperative blockers did not show any statistically significant beneficial effects on any of the individual outcomes and the only nominally statistically significant beneficial relative risk was 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.97, 99% confidence interval 0.16 to 1.24) for the composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal cardiac arrest. Methods adapted from formal interim monitoring boundaries applied to cumulative meta-analysis showed that the evidence failed, by a considerable degree, to meet standards for forgoing additional studies. The individual safety outcomes in patients treated with perioperative blockers showed a relative risk for bradycardia needing treatment of 2.27 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.36, 99% CI 1.36 to 3.80) and a nominally statistically significant relative risk for hypotension needing treatment of 1.27 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.56, 99% CI 0.97 to 1.66). Conclusion The evidence that perioperative blockers reduce major cardiovascular events is encouraging but too unreliable to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

Clinicians need to be aware of the limitations of duplex ultrasound scanning when making management decisions.

Our predictive model using "weighted" CUSUM analysis (a measure of performance over time) demonstrated that a predefined strategy of management of rAAA that includes EVAR is associated with improved (P < .05) mortality. Unstable patients with rAAA may be particularly benefited by EVAR and should not be excluded from repair. Appropriate patients with rAAA who are undergoing treatment in experienced vascular centers should be offered EVAR as the treatment of choice.

A strategy based on the preferential use of LA for EVAR restricting RA or GA only to those with predefined contraindications is feasible and appears to be well tolerated.

Evidence from randomized and nonrandomized trials and from cohort studies support the use of CSF drainage as an adjunct to prevent paraplegia when this adjunct is used in centers with large experience in the management of TAAA.

Mortality in people who underwent REVAR is lower than that in historical reports of unselected people undergoing open repair. Further investigation is needed to determine whether the difference in mortality is attributable to patient selection alone or to this new approach to treatment.