Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effect of distal aortic segmental enlargement (DASE) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for complicated type B aortic dissection (cTBAD). Materials and Methods: From March 2003 to October 2018, 814 patients with acute cTBAD from 5 medical centers were retrospectively identified. DASE is indicated as the enlargement of distal aortic segmental volume ≥1.6 fold of the preoperative volume compared with the most recent postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) scan. Of these patients, 635 (78%) were identified as non-DASE, and 179 (22%) were identified as DASE. Competing risk analysis was performed to compare late death and distal aortic reintervention between the groups. The morphological variables and false lumen thrombosis at 7 aortic levels were measured based on the preoperative CTA and the most recent CTA. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to assess the independent predictors of DASE. Results: The mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 5.6 years (interquartile range: 2.4–8.3 years). There were total of 208 late deaths, including 94 (14.8%) deaths in non-DASE group versus 114 (63.7%) deaths in the DASE group. Distal aortic reintervention was observed in 89 patients, with 43(6.7%) in the non-DASE group versus 46 (25.7%) in the DASE group. The cumulative incidence of late death and distal aortic reintervention were significantly higher in the DASE than in the non-DASE group (p<0.001). In morphological analysis, significant incomplete false lumen thrombosis was observed in all distal aortic segments above the aortic level of celiac artery (p<0.01). According to multivariate analysis, the Marfan syndrome, stent coverage to the level of diaphragm and the level of celiac artery were independent predictors of the DASE (p<0.001). Patients with extended stent coverage to the level of celiac artery have shown a lower incidence of DASE (p<0.010). Conclusion: Compared with the non-DASE group, patients with DASE demonstrated a higher rate of late death and distal aortic reintervention. For the cTBAD population, extended stent-graft coverage to the aortic section between diaphragm and celiac artery might serve as a “cost-efficient” cutoff point aiming to reduce the risk of DASE.

BackgroundConduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) are common following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). There were conflicting data regarding the impact of new PPI on clinical outcomes after TAVR.ObjectivesThe study sought to evaluate the impact of new PPI on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR.MethodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Data were from 210 consecutive patients without prior PPI who underwent TAVR due to severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at our center between June 2018 and July 2020. Clinical, echocardiographic, and pacing data were assessed at 30‐day, 1‐ and 2‐year follow‐up.ResultsNew PPI was required in 35 (16.7%) patients within 30 days after TAVR. The median time from TAVR to PPI was 3 days. The most common indication for PPI was high‐degree or complete atrioventricular block. The median follow‐up was 798.0 (interquartile range, 669.0–1115.0) days. There were no differences in all‐cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85–2.36; p = 0.415) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.57–1.89; p = 0.609) between groups. However, PPI group had a higher risk of heart failure (HF) rehospitalization (adjusted HR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.26–2.28; p = 0.027). Echocardiography showed no significant improvement of LVEF over time in patients with PPI. At the latest follow‐up, 31.3% of patients exhibited low (≤10%) pacing burdens, whereas 28.1% of patients had near constant (>90%) right ventricular pacing.ConclusionsNew PPI within 30 days following TAVR was not associated with an increased risk of all‐cause or cardiovascular mortality. However, patients with PPI had a higher risk of HF rehospitalization and lack of LVEF improvement.

Background: Reconstruction of the aortic arch and its three supra-aortic vessels remains a great surgical challenge with postoperative complications. We present a simplified total arch reconstruction with a modified stent graft (s-TAR) and compared its operative outcomes with conventional total arch replacement (c-TAR).Methods: This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from all consecutive patients who had ascending aortic aneurysm with extended aortic arch dilation and underwent simultaneous ascending aorta replacement and aortic arch reconstruction with the s-TAR or c-TAR between 2018 and 2021. The indication for intervention was maximum diameter of ascending aorta >55 mm and aortic arch in zone II >35 mm.Results: A total of 84 patients were analyzed: 43 in the s-TAR group and 41 in the c-TAR group. No inter-group differences were found for sex, age, comorbidities, or EuroSCORE II results. All patients were successfully treated with s-TAR or c-TAR, and none died intraoperatively. Cardiopulmonary bypass, selective cerebral perfusion, and lower-body circulatory arrest time were significantly shorter in the s-TAR group, which also had a lower incidence of prolonged ventilation and transient neurologic dysfunction. No patient in either group experienced permanent neurologic dysfunction. The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and paraplegia was markedly increased in the c-TAR group; however, no such events were observed in the s-TAR group. Both perioperative blood loss and the incidence of reoperation for bleeding were significantly lower in the s-TAR group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 0% in the s-TAR group and 4.9% in the c-TAR group. The s-TAR group had significantly shorter ICU stay and lower total hospitalization costs. Conclusions:The s-TAR technique is a safe and effective alternative for total arch reconstruction with shorter operation time, lower rate of postoperative complications and lower total hospitalization costs compared with c-TAR.

Background: Patients with acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) often have hypoxemia (partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2]/fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2] &lt;300 mmHg) before weaning in the intensive care unit (ICU). This study compared the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) with that of conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients with AADA following Sun's procedure.Methods: The medical records of 87 adult patients with AADA who underwent Sun's procedure and met the inclusion criteria (PaO2/FiO2 &lt;300 mmHg before weaning) were retrospectively analyzed. After surgery, 41 patients were treated with HFNC and 46 were treated with COT. The oxygenation level, FiO2, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, heart rate, respiratory rate, subjective discomfort, and reintubation rate were recorded. The difference in lung volume loss between the HFNC and COT groups was assessed using the radiological atelectasis score (chest radiograph) or calculated from three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images.Results: From day 1 to day 5 after weaning, there was no significant difference in PaO2/FiO2 between the HFNC and COT groups, although the FiO2 was significantly lower in the HFNC group than in the COT group (P &lt; 0.05). Further studies indicated that the percentage of lung volume loss (pleural effusion and/or pulmonary atelectasis) by 3D reconstruction of CT images at 4–8 days post-operation was significantly lower in the HFNC group (P &lt; 0.05). The subjective experience of breathing discomfort, reintubation rate, and length of stay in the ICU were significantly reduced in the HFNC group (P &lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in readmission to the ICU and in-hospital mortality between the two groups.Conclusions: HFNC can be used as an effective oxygen therapy for AADA patients with hypoxemia after Sun's procedure.