Abstract Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a surgery with the use of valved conduit is capable of leading to better immediate and late results than those obtained by the valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction technique. Methods: Between January 2002 and June 2016, 448 patients underwent aortic root reconstruction. These were divided into three groups according to the technique used: 319 (71.2%) patients received mechanical valved conduits, 49 (10.9%) received biological valved conduits, and 80 (17.9%) underwent the valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction technique. The results were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses of Cox proportional hazards models with multiple logistic regression. Results: The hospital mortality rate was 7.5%. The mortality rates were 8.2%, 12%, and 2.5% in the mechanical valved conduit, biological valved conduit, and aortic valve-sparing groups, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (P=0.1). Thromboembolic complications and reoperation-free survival were also similar (P=0.169 and P=0.688). However, valve-sparing aortic root replacement was superior in terms of long-term survival (P<0.001), hemorrhagic-free survival (P<0.001), and endocarditis-free survival (P=0.048). Multivariate analysis showed that the following aspects had an impact on mortality: age > 70 years (P<0.001; hazard ratio [HR] 1.05), preoperative acute kidney injury (P<0.0042; HR 2.9), diagnosis of dissection (P<0.01; HR 2.0), previous cardiac surgery (P<0.027; HR 2.3), associated coronary artery bypass grafting (P<0.038; HR 1.8), reoperation for postoperative tamponade (P<0.004; HR 2.2) and postoperative acute kidney injury (P<0.02; HR 3.35). Conclusion: Valve-sparing technique seems to be the operation of choice, whenever possible, for aortic root reconstruction.

Abstract Introduction: Conventional techniques of surgical correction of arch and descending aortic diseases remains as high-risk procedures. Endovascular treatments of abdominal and descending thoracic aorta have lower surgical risk. Evolution of both techniques - open debranching of the arch and endovascular approach of the descending aorta - may extend a less invasive endovascular treatment for a more extensive disease with necessity of proximal landing zone in the arch. Objective: To evaluate descending thoracic aortic remodeling by means of volumetric analysis after hybrid approach of aortic arch debranching and stenting the descending aorta. Methods: Retrospective review of seven consecutive patients treated between September 2014 and August 2016 for diseases of proximal descending aorta (aneurysms and dissections) by hybrid approach to deliver the endograft at zone 1. Computed tomography angiography were analyzed using a specific software to calculate descending thoracic aorta volumes pre- and postoperatively. Results: Follow-up was done in 100% of patients with a median time of 321 days (range, 41-625 days). No deaths or permanent neurological complications were observed. There were no endoleaks or stent migrations. Freedom from reintervention was 100% at 300 days and 66% at 600 days. Median volume reduction was of 45.5 cm3, representing a median volume shrinkage by 9.3%. Conclusion: Hybrid approach of arch and descending thoracic aorta diseases is feasible and leads to a favorable aortic remodeling with significant volume reduction.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of performing aortic valve repair in combination with valve-sparing operation on the length of time for which patients are free from reoperation is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine if the performance of aortic valve repair during valve-sparing operation modified the freedom from reoperation time. METHODS: From January 2003 to July 2014, 78 patients with a mean age of 49±15 years underwent valve-sparing operation. Sixty-eight percent of these patients were male. Twenty-two (28%) aortic valve repair procedures were performed in this patient population. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 77.3% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 58.6% of patients had moderate/severe aortic insufficiency (ns = not significant). Additionally, 13.6% of patients in the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV, while 14.2% of patients in the valve-sparing operation group had functional class III/IV (ns). RESULTS: The in-hospital and late mortality rates, for the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation and valve-sparing operation groups were similar, as they were 4.5% and 3.6%; and 0% and 1.8%, respectively. In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients presented moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during late follow-up, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 14.2% of patients presented with moderate/severe aortic insufficiency during this period (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 5.3% of patients presented with functional class III/IV, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 4.2% of patients presented with functional class III/IV (ns). In the aortic valve repair + valve-sparing operation group, 0% of patients required reoperation, while in the valve-sparing operation group, 3.6% of patients required reoperation over a mean follow-up period of 1621±1156 days (75 patients). CONCLUSION: Valve-sparing operation is a safe and long-lasting procedure and performance of aortic valve repair when necessary does not increase risk of reoperation on the aortic valve.

ResumoObjetivo:Relatar experiência inicial com a técnica "Frozen Elephant Trunk".Métodos:Entre julho de 2009 e outubro de 2013, 21 pacientes, 66% homens, média de idade de 56±11 anos, 66,7% portadores de dissecção da aorta tipo A de Stanford (9,6% agudas e 57,1% crônicas), tipo B (14,3%, todas crônicas) e aneurismas complexos (19%), foram operados pela técnica Frozen Elephant Trunk. Foram 9,5% de reoperações e 38% com procedimentos associados (25,3% revascularizações do miocárdio, 25,3% troca da valva aórtica e 49,4% tubos valvulados). Remodelamento da aorta foi avaliado com a comparação de angiotomografia pré-operatória e pós-operatória mais recente. Seguimento 100% dos pacientes, tempo médio de 28 meses.Resultados:Mortalidade hospitalar de 14,2%, sendo 50% nas dissecções do tipo A agudas, 8,3% nas tipo A crônicas, 33,3% nas tipo B crônicas e 0% nos aneurismas complexos. Tempos médios de CEC (152±24min), isquemia miocárdica (115±31min) e perfusão cerebral seletiva (60±15min). Principais complicações pós-operatórias foram sangramento (14,2%), acidente vascular encefálico (4,7%), paraplegia (9,5%), intubação>72h (4,7%) e insuficiência renal aguda (4,7%). Houve necessidade de complementação do tratamento (distal ao stent) em 19%. Houve trombose da falsa luz em 80%.Conclusão:Frozen Elephant Trunk é opção técnica a ser utilizada. A gravidade e extensão da doença justificam mortalidade mais elevada. A curva de aprendizado é uma realidade. Esta abordagem permite abordar mais de dois segmentos de aorta em um estágio, mas se necessário segundo estágio, este é facilitado.

AbstractObjective:Report initial experience with the Frozen Elephant Trunk technique.Methods:From July 2009 to October 2013, Frozen Elephant Trunk technique was performed in 21 patients (66% male, mean age 56 ±11 years). They had type A aortic dissection (acute 9.6%, chronic 57.3%), type B (14.3%, all chronic) and complex aneurysms (19%). It was 9.5% of reoperations and 38% of associated procedures (25.3% miocardial revascularization, 25.3% replacement of aortic valve and 49.4% aortic valved graft). Aortic remodeling was evaluated comparing preoperative and most recent computed tomography scans. One hundred per cent of complete follow-up, mean time of 28 months.Results:In-hospital mortality of 14.2%, being 50% in acute type A aortic dissection, 8.3% in chronic type A aortic dissection, 33.3% in chronic type B aortic dissection and 0% in complex aneurysms. Mean times of cardiopulmonary bypass (152±24min), myocardial ischemia (115±31min) and selective cerebral perfusion (60±15min). Main complications were bleeding (14.2%), spinal cord injury (9.5%), stroke (4.7%), prolonged mechanical ventilation (4.7%) and acute renal failure (4.7%). The need for second-stage operation was 19%. False-lumen thrombosis was obtained in 80%.Conclusion:Frozen Elephant Trunk is a feasible technique and should be considered. The severity of the underlying disease justifies high mortality rates. The learning curve is a reality. This approach allows treatment of more than two segments at once. Nonetheless, if a second stage is made necessary, it is facilitated.