Asvin M. Ganapathi

Five-year results for endovascular repair of acute complicated type B aortic dissection

INTRODUCTION Despite a current lack of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for the indication, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has replaced open surgical management for acute complicated type B aortic dissection due to promising short- and midterm data. However, long-term results, with a view toward durability and need for secondary procedures, are limited. As such, the objective of the present study is to report long-term outcomes of TEVAR for acute (≤ 2 weeks from symptom onset) complicated type B dissection. METHODS Between July 2005 and September 2012, 50 consecutive patients underwent TEVAR for management of acute complicated type B dissection at a single referral institution. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained clinical database. RESULTS Indications for intervention included rupture in 10 (20%), malperfusion in 24 (48%), and/or refractory pain/impending rupture in 17 (34%). One patient (2%) had both rupture and malperfusion indications. Ten (20%) patients required one or more adjunctive procedures, in addition to TEVAR, to treat malperfusion syndromes. In-hospital and 30-day rates of death were both 0%; 30-day/in-hospital rates of stroke, permanent paraplegia/paraparesis, and new-onset dialysis were 2% (n = 1), 2% (n = 1), and 4% (n = 2), respectively. Median follow-up was 33.8 months [interquartile range, 12.3-56.6 months]. Overall survival at 5 and 7 years was 84%, with no deaths attributable to aortic pathology. Thirteen (26%) patients required a total of 17 reinterventions over the study period for type I endoleak (n = 5), metachronous aortic pathology (n = 5), persistent false lumen pressurization via distal fenestrations (n = 4), type II endoleak (n = 2), or retrograde acute type A aortic dissection (n = 1). Median time to first reintervention was 4.5 months (range, 0 days-40.3 months). Of the 17 total reinterventions, six (35%) were performed using open techniques and 11 (65%) with endovascular or hybrid methods; there was no difference in survival between patients who did or did not require reintervention. CONCLUSIONS This study confirms the excellent short-term outcomes of TEVAR for acute complicated type B dissection and demonstrates the results to be durable and sustained over long-term follow-up. Although aortic reinterventions were required in one-quarter of patients, no aortic-related deaths were observed. These data support the use of TEVAR for acute complicated type B aortic dissection but also highlight the importance of life-long aortic surveillance by an experienced aortic referral center in order to identify and treat complications of the underlying disease process and treatment, as well as new aortic pathologies, as they arise.

Outcomes of Acute Type A Dissection Repair Before and After Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Thoracic Aortic Surgery Program

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the results of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair before and after implementation of a multidisciplinary thoracic aortic surgery program (TASP) at our institution, with dedicated high-volume thoracic aortic surgeons, a multidisciplinary approach to thoracic aortic disease management, and a standardized protocol for ATAAD repair. BACKGROUND Outcomes of ATAAD repair may be improved when operations are performed at specialized high-volume thoracic aortic surgical centers. METHODS Between 1999 and 2011, 128 patients underwent ATAAD repair at our institution. Records of patients who underwent ATAAD repair 6 years before (n = 56) and 6 years after (n = 72) implementation of the TASP were retrospectively compared. Expected operative mortality rates were calculated using the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection pre-operative prediction model. RESULTS Baseline risk profiles and expected operative mortality rates were comparable between patients who underwent surgery before and after implementation of the TASP. Operative mortality before TASP implementation was 33.9% and was statistically equivalent to the expected operative mortality rate of 26.0% (observed-to-expected mortality ratio 1.30; p = 0.54). Operative mortality after TASP implementation fell to 2.8% and was statistically improved compared with the expected operative mortality rate of 18.2% (observed-to-expected mortality ratio 0.15; p = 0.005). Differences in survival persisted over long-term follow-up, with 5-year survival rates of 85% observed for TASP patients compared with 55% for pre-TASP patients (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS ATAAD repair can be performed with results approximating those of elective proximal aortic surgery when operations are performed by a high-volume multidisciplinary thoracic aortic surgery team. Efforts to standardize or centralize care of patients undergoing ATAAD are warranted.

Clinical Impact of Concomitant Tricuspid Valve Procedures During Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

BACKGROUND Almost 50% of patients referred for implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) have significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Preoperative TR is associated with negative outcomes but the clinical benefit of concomitant tricuspid valve procedures has not been extensively studied. METHODS One hundred fifteen patients, undergoing implantable LVADs, were identified as having significant TR by echocardiography prior to their surgical procedure. Patients underwent either LVAD alone (n = 81) versus LVAD plus concomitant tricuspid procedures (n = 34) (29 annuloplasty ring repairs and 5 bioprosthetic replacements.) Preoperative characteristics and hemodynamics, as well as TR severity and clinical outcomes were retrospectively determined from chart and database review and compared for the two groups. RESULTS Preoperative characteristics and hemodynamics were similar for the two groups. Postoperative TR was markedly reduced for the group undergoing concomitant procedures versus LVAD alone. A temporary right ventricular assist device was required for only one of the 34 cases in which concomitant tricuspid procedures were performed; for patients undergoing LVAD alone, 8 of 81 required right ventricular assist devices. Mean duration of postoperative inotrope utilization was increased for the LVAD alone group versus the group with concomitant tricuspid procedures (10.0 vs 8.0 days, respectively, p = 0.04). The incidence of postoperative renal dysfunction was increased for the LVAD alone group (39%) versus concomitant procedures (21%) (p = 0.05). The LVAD alone group also had a greater mean postimplant length of hospitalization versus the concomitant procedures group (26.0 vs 19.0 days, p = 0.02). Finally, there was a trend toward improved survival for the group with concomitant tricuspid procedures versus LVAD alone. CONCLUSIONS For patients with significant TR undergoing implantable LVAD procedures, concomitant tricuspid procedures are associated with improved early clinical outcomes.

Robotic Low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer: A National Perspective on Short-term Oncologic Outcomes.

Objective: This study examines short-term outcomes and pathologic surrogates of oncologic results among patients undergoing robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer. A total of 6403 patients met inclusion criteria. Although the robotic approach required significantly fewer conversions to open, surrogates for proper oncologic surgery were nearly identical between the 2 approaches. Background: Although laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) has gained popularity as an acceptable approach, the robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) remains largely unproven. We compared short-term oncologic outcomes between rectal cancer patients undergoing either RLAR or LLAR. Study Design: All patients with rectal cancer in the National Cancer Data Base undergoing RLAR or LLAR from 2010 to 2011 were included. Predictors of RLAR were modeled with multivariable logistic regression. Groups were matched on propensity to undergo RLAR. Primary endpoints included lymph node retrieval and margin status, whereas secondary 30-day outcomes were mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and unplanned readmission rates. Results: A total of 6403 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 956 (14.9%) underwent RLAR. RLAR patients were more likely to be treated at academic centers, receive neoadjuvant therapy, and have higher T-stage and longer time to surgery (all P < 0.001). Neoadjuvant therapy and treatment at an academic/research center remained the only significant predictors of robotic use after multivariable adjustment. After propensity matching, RLAR was associated with lower conversion (9.5 vs 16.4%, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in lymph node retrieval, margin status, 30-day mortality, readmission, or hospital LOS. Conclusions: In this largest series to date, we demonstrated equivalent perioperative safety and patient outcomes for robotic compared to LLAR in the setting of rectal cancer. Although the robotic approach required significantly fewer conversions to open, surrogates for proper oncologic surgery were nearly identical between the 2 approaches, suggesting that a robotic approach may be a suitable alternative. Further studies comparing long-term cancer recurrence and survival should be performed.

Utility of concomitant tricuspid valve procedures for patients undergoing implantation of a continuous-flow left ventricular device

OBJECTIVE Patients referred for implantable continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (cfLVAD) frequently have preoperative right heart failure and tricuspid regurgitation (TR). The objective of this report is to examine early clinical benefits of concomitant tricuspid surgery for these patients. METHODS Sixty-one of 200 consecutive cfLVAD patients at our institution displayed preimplant right heart dysfunction and significant TR. Thirty-three underwent cfLVAD plus a tricuspid valve procedure (TVP), and 28 had cfLVAD alone. Preimplant characteristics and clinical outcomes were retrospectively studied. As previously described, post-LVAD right ventricular failure was defined as need for right ventricular assist device (RVAD) support or greater than 14 days of intravenous inotropic support. RESULTS Preimplant characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was increased for the group that received concomitant TVPs. The most common TVP consisted of an undersizing ring annuloplasty. The cfLVAD-alone group had greater TR after implant relative to the cfLVAD+TVP group. The cfLVAD-alone group experienced greater postprocedure right ventricular failure relative to cfLVAD+TVP (46.4% vs 18.2%; P < .05). Furthermore, prolonged hospitalization was increased for the cfLVAD-alone group versus the cfLVAD+TVP. Survival was similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS Concomitant TVP appears to reduce postprocedure right ventricular failure for patients with significant TR undergoing cfLVAD implantation.

Antegrade versus retrograde cerebral perfusion for hemiarch replacement with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest: Does it matter? A propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVE The choice of cerebral perfusion strategy for aortic arch surgery has been debated, and the superiority of antegrade (ACP) or retrograde (RCP) cerebral perfusion has not been shown. We examined the early and late outcomes for ACP versus RCP in proximal (hemi-) arch replacement using deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA). METHODS A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed for all patients undergoing elective and nonelective hemiarch replacement at a single referral institution from June 2005 to February 2013. Total arch cases were excluded to limit the analysis to shorter DHCA times and a more uniform patient population for whom clinical equipoise regarding ACP versus RCP exists. A total of 440 procedures were identified, with 360 (82%) using ACP and 80 (18%) using RCP. The endpoints included 30-day/in-hospital and late outcomes. A propensity score with 1:1 matching of 40 pre- and intraoperative variables was used to adjust for differences between the 2 groups. RESULTS All 80 RCP patients were propensity matched to a cohort of 80 similar ACP patients. The pre- and intraoperative characteristics were not significantly different between the 2 groups after matching. No differences were found in 30-day/in-hospital mortality or morbidity outcomes. The only significant difference between the 2 groups was a shorter mean operative time in the RCP cohort (P = .01). No significant differences were noted in late survival (P = .90). CONCLUSIONS In proximal arch operations using DHCA, equivalent early and late outcomes can be achieved with RCP and ACP, although the mean operative time is significantly less with RCP, likely owing to avoidance of axillary cannulation. Questions remain regarding comparative outcomes with straight DHCA and lesser degrees of hypothermia.

Induction Therapy Does Not Improve Survival for Clinical Stage T2N0 Esophageal Cancer

Introduction: This study compared survival after initial treatment with esophagectomy as primary therapy to induction therapy followed by esophagectomy for patients with clinical T2N0 (cT2N0) esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods: Predictors of therapy selection for patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer in the NCDB from 1998 to 2011 were identified with multivariable logistic regression. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. Results: Surgery was used in 42.9% (2057 of 4799) of cT2N0 patients. Of 1599 esophagectomy patients for whom treatment timing was recorded, induction therapy was used in 44.1% (688). Pretreatment staging was proven accurate in only 26.7% of patients (210 of 786) who underwent initial surgery without induction treatment and had complete pathologic data available: 41.6% (n = 327) were upstaged and 31.7% (n = 249) were downstaged. Adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy or radiation therapy) was given to 50.2% of patients treated initially with surgery who were found after resection to have nodal disease. There was no significant difference in long-term survival between strategies of primary surgery and induction therapy followed by surgery (median 41.1 versus 41.9 months, p = 0.51). In multivariable analysis, induction therapy was not independently associated with risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16, p = 0.32). Conclusions: Current clinical staging for early-stage esophageal cancer is highly inaccurate, with only a quarter of surgically resected cT2N0 patients found to have had accurate pretreatment staging. Induction therapy for patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer in the NCDB is not associated with improved survival.

Current management and outcome of chronic type B aortic dissection: results with open and endovascular repair since the advent of thoracic endografting

BACKGROUND Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the preferred treatment for chronic type B aortic dissection (CTBAD) at our institution. However, it remains incapable of treating all patients with CTBAD. The present study aims to review our contemporary results with open and endovascular CTBAD repairs since the advent of thoracic endografting. METHODS The records of all patients undergoing index repair of CTBAD (chronic DeBakey type IIIA, IIIB and repaired type I) at our institution between June 2005 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS A total of 107 patients underwent CTBAD repair, of whom 70% (n=75) underwent endovascular-based procedures [44 TEVAR, 27 hybrid arch and four hybrid thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair] and 30% (n=32) underwent open procedures (nine open descending and 23 open TAAA). Connective tissue disease (CTD), prior aortic surgery and DeBakey dissection type were strongly associated with the choice of operation. The rates of stroke, paraplegia and operative mortality following endovascular-based repairs were 0%, 0% and 4% (n=3), respectively. Adverse neurologic events were higher following open repair, and rates of stroke, paraplegia, and operative mortality were 16% (n=5), 9% (n=3), and 6% (n=2), respectively. However, 1- and 5-year survival rates were similar for endovascular-based repairs (86% and 65%, respectively), and open repairs (88% and 79%, respectively). Over a median follow-up interval of 34 months, the rate of descending aortic reintervention was 24% (n=18) following endovascular-based repairs and 0% following open repairs (P=0.001). Forty-four percent (n=8) of descending aortic reinterventions were required to treat stent graft complications (five endoleak, two stent graft collapse and one stent graft-induced new entry tear) and the remainder were required to treat metachronous pathology (n=2) or progressive aneurysmal disease related to persistent distal fenestrations (n=8). CONCLUSIONS Endovascular repair of CTBAD was associated with excellent procedural and survival outcomes, but at the expense of further reinterventions. Open repair remains relevant for patients who are not candidates for endovascular repair and was associated with higher procedural morbidity but similar overall survival and fewer reinterventions.

Traveling to a High-volume Center is Associated With Improved Survival for Patients With Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND An association between volume and outcomes has been observed for esophagectomy, though little is known about why or how patients choose low- or high-volume centers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how travel burden and hospital volume influence treatment and outcomes of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. METHODS Predictors of receiving esophagectomy for patients with T1-3N1M0 mid or distal esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Data Base from 2006 to 2011 were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Survival was compared using propensity score-matched groups: patients in the bottom quartile of travel distance who underwent treatment at low-volume facilities (Local) and patients in the top quartile of travel distance who underwent treatment at high-volume facilities (Travel). RESULTS Of 4979 patients who met inclusion criteria, we identified 867 Local patients who traveled 2.7 [interquartile range (IQR): 1.6-4 miles] miles to centers that treated 2.6 (IQR: 1.9-3.3) esophageal cancers per year, and 317 Travel patients who traveled 107.1 (IQR: 65-247) miles to centers treating 31.9 (IQR: 30.9-38.5) cases. Travel patients were more likely to undergo esophagectomy (67.8% vs 42.9%, P < 0.001) and had significantly better 5-year survival (39.8% vs 20.6%, P < 0.001) than Local patients. CONCLUSIONS Patients who travel longer distances to high-volume centers have significantly different treatment and better outcomes than patients who stay close to home at low-volume centers. Strategies that support patient travel for treatment at high-volume centers may improve esophageal cancer outcomes.Background: An association between volume and outcomes has been observed for esophagectomy, though little is known about why or how patients choose low- or high-volume centers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how travel burden and hospital volume influence treatment and outcomes of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Methods: Predictors of receiving esophagectomy for patients with T1-3N1M0 mid or distal esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Data Base from 2006 to 2011 were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Survival was compared using propensity score-matched groups: patients in the bottom quartile of travel distance who underwent treatment at low-volume facilities (Local) and patients in the top quartile of travel distance who underwent treatment at high-volume facilities (Travel). Results: Of 4979 patients who met inclusion criteria, we identified 867 Local patients who traveled 2.7 [interquartile range (IQR): 1.6–4 miles] miles to centers that treated 2.6 (IQR: 1.9–3.3) esophageal cancers per year, and 317 Travel patients who traveled 107.1 (IQR: 65–247) miles to centers treating 31.9 (IQR: 30.9–38.5) cases. Travel patients were more likely to undergo esophagectomy (67.8% vs 42.9%, P < 0.001) and had significantly better 5-year survival (39.8% vs 20.6%, P < 0.001) than Local patients. Conclusions: Patients who travel longer distances to high-volume centers have significantly different treatment and better outcomes than patients who stay close to home at low-volume centers. Strategies that support patient travel for treatment at high-volume centers may improve esophageal cancer outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open low anterior resection for rectal cancer: results from the national cancer data base.

BackgroundWhile the use of laparoscopy has increased among patients undergoing colorectal surgery, there is ongoing debate regarding the oncologic equivalence of laparoscopy compared to open low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer.MethodsThe 2010–2011 NCDB was queried for patients undergoing LAR for rectal cancer. Subjects were grouped by laparoscopic (LLAR) versus open (OLAR) technique. Baseline characteristics were compared. Subjects were propensity matched, and outcomes were compared between groups.ResultsA total of 18,765 patients were identified (34.3 % LLAR, 65.7 % OLAR). After propensity matching, all baseline variables were highly similar except for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level. Complete resection was more common in patients undergoing LLAR (91.6 vs. 88.9 %, p < 0.001), and statistically significant benefits were observed for gross, microscopic, and circumferential (>1 mm) margins (all p < 0.001). There was no difference in median number of lymph nodes obtained (15 vs. 15). Patients undergoing LLAR had shorter lengths of stay (5 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001) without a corresponding increase in 30-day readmission rates (6 vs. 7 %, p = 0.02).ConclusionsLaparoscopic LAR appears to result in equivalent short-term oncologic outcomes compared to the traditional open approach as measured via surrogate endpoints in the NCDB. While these results support the increasing use of laparoscopy in rectal surgery, further data are necessary to assess long-term outcomes.