Patients with ATAD who are operated on by lower-volume surgeons experience higher levels of in-hospital mortality. Directing these patients to higher-volume surgeons may be a strategy to reduce in-hospital mortality.

BackgroundThe introduction of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique for total arch replacement (TAR) has revolutionized the field of aortivascular surgery by allowing hybrid repair of complex aortic pathologies in a single step through combining an open surgical approach with an endovascular one. FET has been associated with favorable aortic remodeling, however, its is also associated with development of distal stent graft induced new entry (dSINE) tears postoperatively. The rate of aortic remodeling and the incidence of dSINE have been linked together, in addition, there seems to be a relationship between these two variables and FET insetion length as well as graft size.AimsThe scope of this review is to highlight the rate of aortic remodeling as well the incidence of dSINE associated with different FET devices available commercially. This review also aimed to investigate the relationship between aortic remodeling, dSINE, FET insertion length and FET graft size.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search using multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, Scopus and Embase in order to collate all research evidence on the above mentioned variables.ResultsThoraflex™ Hybrid Plexus seems to yield optimum aortic remodeling by promoting maximum false thrombosis as well true lumen expansion. Thoraflex Hybrid™ is also associated with the lowest incidence of dSINE post-FET relative to the other FET devices on the market. Aortic remodeling and dSINE do influence each other and are both linked with FET graft length and size.ConclusionThe FET technique for TAR shows excellent aortic remodeling but is associated with a considerable risk of dSINE development. However, Thoraflex™ Hybrid has demonstrated itself to be the superior FET device on the aortic arch prostheses market. Since aortic remodeling, dSINE, FET insertion length and stent graft size are all interconnect, the choice of FET device length and size must be made with great care for optimum results.

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular pathology and has traditionally been managed using surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). A large proportion of affected patient demographics, however, are unfit to undergo major surgery given underlying comorbidities. Since its introduction in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has gained popularity and transformed the care available to different-risk group patients with severe symptomatic AS. Specific qualifying criteria and refinement of TAVI techniques are fundamental in determining successful outcomes for intervention. Given the successful applicability in high-risk patients, TAVI has been further developed and trialed in intermediate and low-risk patients. Within intermediate-risk patient groups, TAVI was shown to be noninferior to SAVR evaluating 30-d mortality and secondary endpoints such as the risk of bleeding, development of acute kidney injury, and length of admission. The feasibility of expanding TAVI procedures into low-risk patients is still a controversial topic in the literature. A number of trials have recently been published which demonstrate TAVI as noninferior and even superior over SAVR for primary study endpoints. K E Y W O R D S aortic valve, surgery, TAVI, valve replacement 1 | INTRODUCTION Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular pathology, with between 2% and 4% of patients over the age of 75 years bring affected. 1 For decades, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been considered the class I recommendation in the management of AS. 2 However, given that advanced age, frailty, and significant comorbidities are increasingly prevalent in affected patients; more than one-third of high-risk and severe symptomatic AS patients were not considered physiologically fit enough for major surgical intervention. 2,3 This merited the development of TAVI, an intervention suitable for high-risk patients and those deemed unfit for surgery. With a shift in clinical paradigm toward minimally invasive procedures, the development of TAVI has revolutionized clinical outcomes in AS, particularly in those once considered inoperable. 4 The decision to use TAVI vs SAVR for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is determined by clinical, anatomical, and technical considerations. Since its introduction in 2002, 5 TAVI has increasingly replaced SAVR, the once considered gold standard treatment, in aortic valve diseases. 6-10 More recently, trials such as the Placement of Aortic Trans-Catheter Valve II (PARTNER II) and Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) 11,12 have further established the use of TAVI in intermediate-risk patients as well. Given this validation of TAVI within high-and intermediate-risk patients, a need has now developed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of TAVI within low-risk surgical candidates. 13Selective candidate criteria, as well as advances in operative techniques within TAVI, are mainstay contributors to successful outcomes. Fundamentally, there exist both retrogr...

Over the decades, the Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) technique has gained immense popularity allowing simplified treatment of complex aortic pathologies. FET is frequently used to treat aortic conditions involving the distal aortic arch and the proximal descending aorta in a single stage. Surgical preference has recently changed from FET procedures being performed at Zone 3 to Zone 2. There are several advantages of Zone 2 FET over Zone 3 FET including reduction in spinal cord injury, visceral ischemia, neurological and cardiovascular sequelae. In addition, Zone 2 FET is a technically less complicated procedure. Literature on the comparison between Zone 3 and Zone 2 FET is scarce and primarily observational and anecdotal. Therefore, further research is warranted in this paradigm to substantiate current surgical treatment options for complex aortic pathologies. In this review, we explore literature surrounding FET and the reasons for the shift in surgical preference from Zone 3 to Zone 2.

BackgroundThe widespread adoption of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique for total arch reconstruction (TAR) in aortic arch aneurysm and dissection has led to the development of numerous commercial single-piece FET devices, each with its own unique design features. One such device, Thoraflex™ Hybrid (Terumo Aortic, Glasgow, Scotland), has enjoyed widespread use since its introduction. We present and appraisal of its long-term clinical efficacy, based on international data.Materials and MethodsPre-, intra-, and postoperative data associated with Thoraflex™ Hybrid implantations for aortic arch dissection, aneurysm, and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (PAU) up to April 2019 was gathered and is presented herein. Follow-up data at discharge, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24-, 36-, 48-, 60-, 72-, and 84- months post-implantation are included.ResultsData associated with 931 cases of Thoraflex™ Hybrid implantation are included. Mean age at implantation was 63 ± 12 years. 55% of patients included were male. Aortic dissection accounted for 48% (n = 464) of cases. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest durations were 202 +72 and 69 ± 50 min, respectively. 30-day mortality was 0.6% (n = 6), while overall mortality was 14 (1.5%). Freedom from adverse events at 84 months was 95% (n = 869). Postoperative complications included neurological deficit, multi-organ failure, cardiorespiratory compromise, and infection.DiscussionThoraflex™ Hybrid's unique design is advantageous in comparison to market alternatives. Our data is consistent with that reported in literature and suggests Thoraflex™ Hybrid is associated with favourable rates of mortality and morbidity.ConclusionThoraflex™ Hybrid remains a central player in the aortic arch prosthesis market. Its use it widespread and is associated with favourable design features and clinical outcomes relative to market alternatives.

Evidence suggests that preoperative IABP may have a beneficial effect on mortality and morbidity in specific high risk patient groups undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, however there are many problems with the quality, validity and generalisability of the trials. However, the available evidence is not robust enough to extend the use of IABP to truly elective, high risk patients. Defining more precisely which patient groups may benefit would be the challenge for the future.

This meta-analysis shows that mitral valve repair has good clinical outcomes both in-hospital and at 1 and 5 years of follow-up. Mitral valve repair should be attempted in those patients in whom sufficient valve tissue is present for reconstruction after all infectious tissue has been resected.

No abstract