OBJECTIVES Our goal was to investigate whether the incidence of valve-related adverse events might be different depending on the valve substitute after valve replacement for left-sided native valve endocarditis. METHODS We assessed the long-term freedom from recurrence, reoperation and survival of 395 patients who had valve replacements for native valve endocarditis (314 mechanical vs 81 biological). Age <18 years, reoperation, prosthetic endocarditis, right valve involvement, valve repair and homograft implants were the main exclusion criteria. The balance between the 2 groups was addressed by weighting the results on the inverse of the propensity score. RESULTS After inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), freedom from recurrence of infective endocarditis was not significantly different (mechanical 84.1 ± 3.2% vs 50.6 ± 21.7%; P = 0.29) nor was freedom from reoperation different (mechanical 85.7 ± 3.1% vs biological 50.9 ± 21.9%; P = 0.29). Excluding competing deaths, patients receiving a bioprosthesis had a similar subdistribution hazard of the above end points compared to recipients of a mechanical valve [recurrence IPTW: hazard ratio (HR) 1.631, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.756–3.516; P = 0.21; reoperation IPTW-HR 1.737, 95% CI 0.780–3.870; P = 0.18]. Mechanical valves were associated with improved long-term survival (34.9 ± 5.8% vs 10.5 ± 7.4% at 30 years; P = 0.0009; in particular: aortic valve subgroup 41.6 ± 9.3% vs 10.1 ± 8.2%; P < 0.0001), although the hazard of cardiovascular mortality did not favour either valve type (IPTW: HR 1.361, 95% CI 0.771–2.404; P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS Our analysis showed a clinical trend in favour of mechanical valves as valve substitutes for native valve endocarditis, especially in the aortic position. In view of long-term freedom from adverse events, the choice of the valve type should be tailored according to patient characteristics and specific clinical conditions.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures. METHODS Forty departments shared their data on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures between January and May 2020 and January and May 2019 in Europe, Asia and the USA. Admission rates as well as delay from onset of symptoms to referral were compared. RESULTS No differences in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures were observed between 2020 and the reference period in 2019 [incidence rates ratio (IRR): 0.96, confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.04; P = 0.39]. Also, no difference in the time interval from acute onset of symptoms to referral was recorded (<12 h 32% vs > 12 h 68% in 2020, < 12 h 34% vs > 12 h 66% in 2019 P = 0.29). Conversely, a decline of 35% in elective procedures was seen (IRR: 0.81, CI 0.76–0.87; P < 0.001) with substantial differences between countries and the most pronounced decline in Italy (−40%, P < 0.001). Interestingly, in Switzerland, an increase in the number of elective cases was observed (+35%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS There was no change in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic cases and procedures during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the case load of elective operations and procedures decreased significantly. Patients with acute aortic syndromes presented despite COVID-19 and were managed according to current guidelines. Further analysis is required to prove that deferral of elective cases had no impact on premature mortality.

OBJECTIVES Recently, increased length of the ascending aorta has been suggested as a possible risk factor for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). Our goal was to identify measurable aortic geometrical characteristics associated with elongation that could differentiate ATAAD from uncomplicated aortic dilation (&gt;45 mm). METHODS In angiographic computed tomography scans performed in 180 patients having cardiac surgery, aortic diameters, root length, length of the ascending aorta at both the centreline and the greater curvature (convexity) and the root-ascending (root-asc) angle (that between the root axis and the axis of the ascending tract) and the ascending-arch (asc-arch) angle (that between the axis of the ascending aorta and the arch axis) were measured and compared among 3 patient groups: normal aorta (diameter &lt; 45 mm), dilation/aneurysm (&gt;45 mm) and ATAAD. Correlations between diameters and angles, diameters and lengths and lengths and angles were analysed; multivariable analysis including geometrical factors was performed to identify independent predictors of ATAAD. RESULTS Both patients with aneurysms and patients with ATAAD showed significantly elongated ascending aortas (P &lt; 0.001 vs normal). However, in the aneurysms, the root-asc angle (136° ± 20° vs 147° ± 17°; P &lt; 0.001) and in ATAAD the asc-arch angle were uniquely narrower than that in the normal aorta (116° ± 11° vs 132° ± 19°; P &lt; 0.001). All patients with an ATAAD had an asc-arch angle ≤130°. Both in patients with ATAAD and in those without ATAAD, narrowing of the asc-arch angle was associated with elongation of the root segment (P &lt; 0.001). In multivariable analysis, the asc-arch angle and the total length of the ascending aorta (root + tubular) were significant predictors of ATAAD. CONCLUSIONS The asc-arch angle is a promising measurement that could help predict aortic dissection along with aortic diameter and length: further verification is warranted.

Background: Health systems worldwide have been overburdened by the "COVID-19 surge".Consequently, strategies to remodulate non-COVID medical and surgical care had to be developed. Knowledge of the impact of COVID surge on cardiac surgery practice is mainstem. Present study aims to evaluate the regional practice pattern during lockdown in Campania. Methods: A multicenter regional observational 26-question survey was conducted, including all adult cardiac surgery units in Campania, Italy, to assess how surgical practice has changed during COVID-19 national lockdown. Results: All centers adopted specific protocols for screening patients and personnel. A significant reduction in the number of dedicated intensive care unit (ICU) beds (-30.0%±38.1%, range: 0-100%) and cardiac operating rooms (-22.2%±26.4%, range: 0-50%) along with personnel relocation to other departments was disclosed (anesthesiologists -5.8%±11.1%, range: 0-33.3%; perfusionists -5.6%±16.7%, range: 0-50%; nurses -4.8%±13.2%, range: 0-40%; cardiologists -3.2%±9.5%, range: 0-28.6%). Cardiac surgeons were never reallocated to other services. Globally, we witnessed dramatically lower adult cardiac surgery case volumes (335 vs. 667 procedures, P<0.001), as institutions and surgeons followed guidelines to curtail nonurgent operations. Conclusions: This regional survey demonstrates major changes in practice as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this respect, this experience might lead to the development of permanent systems-based plans for future pandemic and may effectively help policy decision making when prioritizing healthcare resource reallocation during and after the pandemic.

No abstract