Intervention rates and outcomes in medically managed uncomplicated descending thoracic aortic dissections

ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term incidence and outcome of aortic interventions for medically managed uncomplicated thoracic aortic dissections.MethodsBetween January 2012 and December 2018, 91 patients were discharged home with an uncomplicated, medically treated aortic dissection (involving the descending aorta with or without aortic arch involvement, no ascending involvement). After a median period of 4 (first quartile: 2, third quartile: 11) months, 30 patients (33%) required an aortic intervention. Patient characteristics, radiographic, treatment, and follow-up data were compared for patients with and without aortic interventions. A competing risk regression model was analyzed to identify independent predictors of aortic intervention and to predict the risk for intervention.ResultsPatients who underwent aortic interventions had significantly larger thoracic (P = .041) and abdominal (P = .015) aortic diameters, the dissection was significantly longer (P = .035), there were more communications between both lumina (P = .040), and the first communication was significantly closer to the left subclavian artery (P = .049). A descending thoracic aortic diameter exceeding 45 mm was predictive for an aortic intervention (P = .001; subdistribution hazard ratio: 3.51). The risk for aortic intervention was 27% ± 10% and 36% ± 11% after 1 and 3 years, respectively. Fourteen patients (47%) underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair, 11 patients (37%) thoracic endovascular aortic repair and left carotid to subclavian bypass, 3 patients (10%) total arch replacement with the frozen elephant trunk technique, and 2 patients (7%) thoracoabdominal aortic replacement. We observed no in-hospital mortality.ConclusionsThe need for secondary aortic interventions in patients with initially medically managed, uncomplicated descending aortic dissections is substantial. The full spectrum of aortic treatment options (endovascular, hybrid, conventional open surgical) is required in these patients.     

Redefining “low risk”: Outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era

ObjectivesGuidelines suggest aortic valve replacement (AVR) for low-risk asymptomatic patients. Indications for transcatheter AVR now include low-risk patients, making it imperative to understand state-of-the-art surgical AVR (SAVR) in this population. Therefore, we compared SAVR outcomes in low-risk patients with those expected from Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) models and assessed their intermediate-term survival.MethodsFrom January 2005 to January 2017, 3493 isolated SAVRs were performed in 3474 patients with STS predicted risk of mortality <4%. Observed operative mortality and composite major morbidity or mortality were compared with STS-expected outcomes according to calendar year of surgery. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for these outcomes. Patients were followed for time-related mortality.ResultsWith 15 observed operative deaths (0.43%) compared with 55 expected (1.6%), the observed:expected ratio was 0.27 for mortality (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.42), stroke 0.65 (95% CI, 0.41-0.89), and reoperation 0.50 (95% CI, 0.42-0.60). Major morbidity or mortality steadily declined, with probabilities of 8.6%, 6.7%, and 5.2% in 2006, 2011, and 2016, respectively, while STS-expected risk remained at approximately 12%. Mitral valve regurgitation, ventricular hypertrophy, pulmonary, renal, and hepatic failure, coronary artery disease, and earlier surgery date were residual risk factors. Survival was 98%, 91%, and 82% at 1, 5, and 9 years, respectively, superior to that predicted for the US age-race-sex–matched population.ConclusionsSTS risk models overestimate contemporary SAVR risk at a high-volume center, supporting efforts to create a more agile quality assessment program. SAVR in low-risk patients provides durable survival benefit, supporting early surgery and providing a benchmark for transcatheter AVR.     

Perivascular fat attenuation for predicting adverse cardiac events in stable patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography

BackgroundInflammation surrounding the coronary arteries can be non-invasively assessed using pericoronary adipose tissue attenuation (PCAT). While PCAT holds promise for further risk stratification of patients with low coronary artery disease (CAD) prevalence, its value in higher risk populations remains unknown.MethodsCORE320 enrolled patients referred for invasive coronary angiography with known or suspected CAD. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) images were collected for 381 patients for whom clinical outcomes were assessed 5 years after enrollment. Using semi-automated image analysis software, PCAT was obtained and normalized for the right coronary (RCA), left anterior descending (LAD), and left circumflex arteries (LCx). The association between PCAT and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow up was assessed using Cox regression models.ResultsThirty-seven patients were excluded due to technical failure. For the remaining 344 patients, median age was 62 (interquartile range, 55–68) with 59% having ≥1 coronary artery stenosis of ≥50% by quantitative coronary angiography. Mean attenuation values for PCAT in RCA, LAD, and LCx were ?74.9, ?74.2, and ?71.2, respectively. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for normalized PCAT in the RCA, LAD, and LCx for MACE were 0.96 (CI: 0.75–1.22, p ?= ?0.71), 1.31 (95% CI: 0.96–1.78, p ?= ?0.09), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.78–1.22, p ?= ?0.84), respectively. For death, stroke, or myocardial infarction only, hazard ratios were 0.68 (0.44–1.07), 0.85 (0.56–1.29), and 0.57 (0.41–0.80), respectively.ConclusionsIn patients referred for invasive coronary angiography with suspected CAD, PCAT did not predict MACE during long term follow up. Further studies are needed to understand the relationship of PCAT with CAD risk.     

Surgical blood ordering schedule for better inventory management: An experience from a tertiary care transfusion center

BackgroundOverordering of blood has been a challenge faced by the blood bank staff. The present study addresses the role of maximum surgical blood ordering schedule (MSBOS) in optimizing the blood inventory management.MethodsThe blood requests for elective surgical procedures from various surgical departments were reviewed to constitute MSBOS. Transfusion profile was assessed using crossmatch to transfused units (C/T) ratio, transfusion probability (TP), and transfusion index (TI). A cutoff of 0.3 and 5% value of TI and TP, respectively, was considered to decide on the type of crossmatch. The efficacy of MSBOS implementation has been determined prospectively by unpaired t test using SPSS software, version 20 (IBM, USA).ResultsA total of 2674 patients were studied. Overall red cell usage rate was 15%. The comprehensive C/T ratio was 4.57. The C/T ratios for the various departments ranged from 1 to 8.5 (adjusted C/T ratio). Highest C/T ratio was observed for surgical procedures performed in the specialties of otorhinolaryngology and urology. A C/T ratio greater than 5 was noted in 30.4% of different types of surgical procedures. Of the 176 different types of elective surgical procedures studied, type and screen protocol was applicable for 75.5% (133) of the procedures. After implementation of MSBOS, the number of crossmatches reduced by 2152 and total working time saved in our laboratory is close to 75,320 man hours.ConclusionMSBOS helps in identifying the common surgical procedures with low TP and is one of the efficient tools in preventing the overordering of the blood.