R Nagib

Quality of life after aortic root surgery: reimplantation technique versus composite replacement.

BACKGROUND Recent studies indicate the safety of the aortic valve reimplantation technique (David operation) in the long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to compare the results of the David operation with those of the aortic composite replacement procedure, with the focus on quality of life (QoL). METHODS Within a 6-year period, 143 patients received either an aortic composite replacement (composite group, n = 67) or the David-I operation (David group, n = 76). The QoL of 108 patients (87% of the living patients) was evaluated postoperatively by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. A subgroup analysis of QoL excluded patients with aortic stenosis and type A acute aortic dissection. RESULTS Hospital survival rates (89.6% versus 97.4%, p = 0.102), as well as actuarial 1-year survival rate (86.6% versus 91.9%) and 3-year survival rate (81.1% versus 91.9%) proved more successful among the David group. Incidences of serious adverse events during the follow-up period (10.8% versus 28.3%, p = 0.008) were higher for patients of the composite group. The QoL was found to be compromised for patients of the composite group, in relation to all criteria outlined in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Subgroup analysis without patients with dissection and aortic stenosis demonstrated a significantly better postoperative QoL for patients of the David group. Patients belonging to the composite group were more frequently compromised by prosthetic valve noise (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates the superiority of the aortic valve reimplantation compared with the aortic composite replacement, regarding both clinical outcome and postoperative QoL.

Clinical outcome and quality of life after reoperative CABG: off-pump versus on-pump - observational pilot study.

BackgroundCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In high-risk patients, doomed for reoperation the adverse effects of CBP may be more striking. We evaluated the results of reoperative CABG (redo-CABG) by either off-pump (OPCAB) or on-pump (ONCAB). Clinical endpoints were perioperative myocardial infarction, mortality, survival and as the most striking difference between prior studies the quality of life (QoL).MethodsWe performed a prospective, non-randomized assessment for patients who underwent redo-CABG by redo-OPCAB (n = 40) or redo-ONCAB (n = 40) at our institution between January 2007 and December 2010. For evaluation of QoL the SF-36 health survey was used with self-administered assessment.ResultsDuring follow-up 37 of 40 patients were alive in the redo-OPCAB group versus 32 of 40 patients in the redo-ONCAB group (p < 0.05). The shorter operation time, less blood loss, fewer perioperative myocardial infarctions, the higher rate of totally arterial revascularisation and shorter intensive care stay were the significantly beneficial differences for patients in the redo-OPCAB group (p < 0.05). The 3-year survival rate was higher in the redo-OPCAB group with 81 ± 12% versus 63 ± 9%in the redo-ONCAB group. The quality of life survey did not reveal any significant differences between both groups.ConclusionIn conclusion, with our present retrospective study, we could demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the redo-OPCAB technique with even higher 3-year survival rate. Both techniques seem to have similar impact on the outcome of patients.

Feasibility and clinical outcome after minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement

Objectives This study aims to examine the feasibility and clinical course after minimally invasive David procedure compared with those via a conventional median sternotomy. Methods One hundred and ninety-two consecutive patients who underwent elective valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) with or without additional cusp repair for aortic regurgitation ( n  = 17, 8.9%), dilatation of the aortic root ( n  = 95, 49.5%) or a combination of both pathologies ( n  = 80, 41.7%) were included. Patients with systemic disorders, such as Marfans syndrome, and emergency cases were excluded. Assessment of quality of life was performed by modified Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. To minimize baseline differences, a matched pair analysis was conducted. Results One hundred and seventeen patients (60.9%) received a minimally invasive hemisternotomy (Group 1), 75 patients a conventional median sternotomy (39.1%, Group 2). Patients of Group 1 were significantly younger (56.5 ± 13.6 vs 64.8 ± 11.6, P  < 0.001). Understandably, concomitant cardiac procedures were more frequent in Group 2 ( n  = 7 [6.0%] vs n  = 48 [64.0%], P  < 0.001). In hospital, mortality was 0.9% in Group 1 (1/117) and 2.7% in Group 2 (2/75; P  = 0.562). Blood loss was significantly less in Group 1 (542.6 ± 441.8 vs 996.7 ± 822.6 ml, P  < 0.001). Duration of mechanical ventilation (10.2 ± 21.8 vs 26.9 ± 109.0 h, P  < 0.001) and ICU-stay (1.9 ± 3.6 vs 3.2 ± 5.6 days, P  < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the minimally invasive group, but this differences did not remain after matching. According to SF-36 questionnaire, patients in the minimally invasive group tend to have a higher quality of life. Conclusions Minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement can be done safely via an upper partial sternotomy in experienced hands even if additional cusp repair is required.

Combined David and Frozen Elephant Trunk Procedure in Acute Aortic Dissection

BACKGROUND  Valve sparing aortic root repair by reimplantation (David procedure) is an established technique in acute aortic dissection Stanford type A involving the aortic root. In DeBakey type I dissection, aortic arch replacement using the frozen elephant trunk (FET) was introduced to promote aortic remodeling of the downstream aorta. The combination of these two complex procedures represents a challenging surgical strategy and was considered too risky so far. METHODS  All patients with acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I undergoing valve sparing aortic root repair by reimplantation technique of David combined with extended aortic repair using the FET at our center between October 2009 and December 2016 were evaluated. Outcomes are compared with patients who underwent prosthetic aortic root replacement and FET for aortic dissection in the same timeframe. RESULTS  A total of 28 patients received combined David and FET procedure, while 20 patients received prosthetic aortic root replacement and FET procedure. Thirty-day mortality was 10.7% (n = 3) for the David group and 20% (n = 4) for the root replacement group (p = 0.43). Postoperative echocardiographic control revealed an excellent aortic valve function with regurgitation grade 0° or maximum grade I° and a mean gradient of 4.3 ± 2.1 mm Hg in all patients in the David group versus 7.2 ± 2.4 mm Hg in the aortic root replacement group, p = 0.003. Computed tomography angiography scan showed positive aortic remodeling in all but three patients (91.9%). Mid-term follow-up survival was 82.1% in the David group and 68.4% in the root replacement group, p = 0.28. There was no need for reintervention at the root or descending aorta. CONCLUSION  Simultaneous application of the David and FET procedure in patients with acute aortic dissection is safe and feasible in experienced hands as compared with standard aortic root replacement plus FET. The mid-term outcomes are encouraging and noninferior to conventional surgery results.