Background: Despite recent advances in aortic surgery, acute type A aortic dissection remains a surgical emergency associated with high mortality and morbidity. Appropriate management is crucial to achieve satisfactory outcomes but the optimal surgical approach is controversial. The present systematic review and meta-analysis sought to access cumulative data from comparative studies between hemiarch and total aortic arch replacement in patients with acute type A aortic dissection.Methods: A systematic review of the literature using six databases. Eligible studies include comparative studies on hemiarch versus total arch replacement reporting short, medium and long term outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed on eligible studies reporting outcome of interest to quantify the effects of hemiarch replacement on mortality and morbidity risk compared to total arch replacement. There was no significant difference in terms of in-hospital mortality between the two groups (RR =0.84; 95% CI: 0.65-1.09; P=0.20; I 2 =0%). Cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross clamp and circulatory arrest times were significantly longer in total arch replacement. During follow up, no significant difference was reported from current studies between the two operative approaches in terms of aortic re-intervention and freedom from aortic reoperation.Conclusions: Within the context of publication bias by high volume aortic centres and non-randomized data sets, there was no difference in mortality outcomes between the two groups. This analysis serves to demonstrate that for those centers doing sufficient total aortic arch activity to allow for publication, excellent and equivalent outcomes are achievable. Conclusions on differences in longer term outcome data are required. We do not, however, advocate total arch as a primary approach by all centers and surgeons irrespective of patient characteristics, but rather, a tailored approach based on surgeon and center experience and patient presentation.

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.

No abstract

IntroductionLeft ventricular (LV) dysfunction frequently occurs after cardiac surgery, requiring inotropic treatment and/or mechanical circulatory support. In this study, we aimed to identify clinical, surgical and echocardiographic factors that are associated with LV dysfunction during weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in high-risk patients undergoing valve replacement for aortic stenosis.MethodsPerioperative data were prospectively collected in 108 surgical candidates with an expected operative mortality ≥9%. All anesthetic and surgical techniques were standardized. Reduced LV systolic function was defined by an ejection fraction <40%. Diastolic function of the LV was assessed using standard Doppler-derived parameters, tissue Doppler Imaging (TDI) and transmitral flow propagation velocity (Vp).ResultsDoppler-derived pulmonary flow indices and TDI could not be obtained in 14 patients. In the remaining 94 patients, poor systolic LV was documented in 14% (n = 12) and diastolic dysfunction in 84% of patients (n = 89), all of whom had Vp <50 cm/s. During weaning from CPB, 38 patients (40%) required inotropic and/or mechanical circulatory support. By multivariate regression analysis, we identified three independent predictors of LV systolic dysfunction: age (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01 to 1.22), aortic clamping time (OR = 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.08) and Vp (OR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.81). Among echocardiographic measurements, Vp was found to be superior in terms of prognostic value and reliability. The best cut-off value for Vp to predict LV dysfunction was 40 cm/s (sensitivity of 72% and specificity 94%). Patients who experienced LV dysfunction presented higher in-hospital mortality (18.4% vs. 3.6% in patients without LV dysfunction, P = 0.044) and an increased incidence of serious cardiac events (81.6 vs. 28.6%, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study provides the first evidence that, besides advanced age and prolonged myocardial ischemic time, LV diastolic dysfunction characterized by Vp ≤ 40 cm/sec identifies patients who will require cardiovascular support following valve replacement for aortic stenosis.

LVEDP as a marker of diastolic dysfunction seems an important variable in predicting patient-specific risk and should be considered for incorporation in future risk models.

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.

Graphical Abstract OBJECTIVES High body mass index (BMI) makes minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) more challenging with some surgeons considering this a contraindication. We sought to determine whether this is because the outcomes are genuinely worse than those of non-obese patients. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing MIMVS ± concomitant procedures over an 8-year period. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and BMI ˂ 30 kg/m2, as per World Health Organization definitions. Baseline characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes and 5-year survival were compared. RESULTS We identified 296 patients (BMI ≥30, n = 41, median 35.3, range 30–43.6; BMI &lt;30, n = 255, median 26.2, range 17.6–29.9). The groups were well matched with regard to baseline characteristics. There was only 1 in-hospital mortality, and this was in the BMI &lt; 30 group. There was no difference in repair rate for degenerative disease (100% vs 96.3%, P &gt; 0.99 respectively) or operative durations [cross-clamp: 122 min interquartile range (IQR) 100–141) vs 125 min (IQR 105–146), P = 0.72, respectively]. There were only 6 conversions to sternotomy, all in non-obese patients. There was no significant difference in any other perioperative or post-operative outcomes. Using the Kaplan–Meier analysis, there was no significant difference in 5-year survival between the 2 groups (95.8% vs 95.5%, P = 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In patients having MIMVS, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that obesity affects either short- or mid-term outcomes. Obesity should therefore not be considered as a contraindication to this technique for experienced teams.

We report the first surgical series of patients developing pleural empyema after severe bilateral interstitial lung disease in confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. The empyema results in a complex medical challenge that requires combination of medical therapies, mechanical ventilation and surgery. The chest drainage approach was not successful to relieve the symptomatology and to drain the excess fluid. After multidisciplinary discussion, a surgical approach was recommended. Even though decortication and pleurectomy are high-risk procedures, they must be considered as an option for pleural effusion in Coronavirus disease-positive patients. This is a life-treating condition, which can worsen the coronavirus disease manifestation and should be treated immediately to improve patient’s status and chance of recovery.