Prophylactic levosimendan did not result in a rate of the short-term composite end point of death, renal-replacement therapy, perioperative myocardial infarction, or use of a mechanical cardiac assist device that was lower than the rate with placebo among patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. (Funded by Tenax Therapeutics; LEVO-CTS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02025621 .).

Objective The role of hybrid repair in the management of aortic arch pathology, and long-term outcomes with these techniques, remains uncertain. We report a decade of experience with hybrid arch repair (HAR) and assess institutional practice patterns with regard to the use of hybrid and open techniques. Methods Hybrid and open total and distal arch procedures performed between July 2005 and January 2015 were identified from a prospectively maintained, institutional aortic surgery database. Perioperative morbidity and mortality, freedom from reintervention, and long-term survival were calculated. Hybrid and open procedural volumes over the study period were assessed to evaluate for potential practice pattern changes. Results During the study period 148 consecutive procedures were performed for repair of transverse and distal aortic arch pathology, including 101 hybrid repairs and 47 open total or distal arch repairs. Patients in the hybrid repair group were significantly older with a greater incidence of chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic lung disease. Perioperative mortality and outcomes were not significantly different between the hybrid and open groups, aside from decreased median length of stay after hybrid repair. Need for subsequent reintervention was significantly greater after hybrid repair. Unadjusted long-term survival was superior after open repair (70% 5-year survival open vs 47% hybrid; P = .03), although aorta-specific survival was similar (98% 5-year aorta-specific survival open vs 93% hybrid; P = .59). Institutional use of HAR decreased over the final 3 years of the study, with an associated increased use of open total or distal arch repairs. This was primarily the result of decreased use of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. Concurrent with this apparent increased stringency around patient selection for HAR, perioperative morbidity and mortality was reduced, including avoidance of retrograde type A dissection. Conclusions HAR remains a viable option for higher-risk patients with transverse arch pathology with perioperative outcomes and long-term aorta-specific survival similar to open repair, albeit at a cost of increased reintervention. This observational single-institution study would suggest decreased use in more recent years in favor of open repair due to avoidance of native zone 0 hybrid procedures. This decline in the institutional use of native zone 0 hybrid repairs was associated with improved perioperative outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

Performing S2P after age 3 months may optimize survival of low- and intermediate-risk infants. High-risk infants are unlikely to complete three-stage palliation, and early S2P may increase their risk of mortality. We infer that early referral for cardiac transplantation may increase their chance of survival.

No abstract

PAP obtained from the intraoperative pulmonary flow study is associated with medium-term survival and late RVSP in patients with PA/VSD/MAPCAs. VSD closure for patients with a mean PAP ≥25 mm Hg on a flow study is considered high risk, and sensible judgment and a low threshold for VSD fenestration are required.

Introduction Lymph node evaluation for node-negative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with long-term survival but it is not clear if smaller tumors require as extensive a pathologic nodal assessment as larger tumors. This study evaluated the relationship of tumor size and optimal extent of lymph node resection using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Materials and Methods The incremental survival benefit of each additional lymph node that was evaluated for patients in the NCDB who underwent lobectomy for clinical Stage I NSCLC from 2003–2006 was evaluated using Cox multivariable proportional hazards regression modeling. The impact of tumor size was assessed by repeating the Cox analysis with patients stratified by tumor size ≥2 cm vs <2 cm. Results A median of 7 [interquartile range: 4,11] lymph nodes were examined in 13,827 patients who met study criteria. Following adjustment, the evaluation of each additional lymph node demonstrated a significant survival benefit through 11 lymph nodes. After grouping patients by tumor size, patients with tumors <2 cm demonstrated a significant survival benefit for the incremental resection of each additional lymph node through 4 lymph nodes while patients with tumors ≥2 cm had a significant survival benefit through 14 lymph nodes. Conclusion Pathologic lymph node evaluation is associated with improved survival for clinically node-negative NSCLC, but the extent of the necessary evaluation varies by tumor size. These results have implications for guidelines for lymph node assessment as well as the choice of surgery versus other ablative techniques for clinical stage I NSCLC.