No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of varying experiences within each surgical team to identify team-related risk factors on clinical outcomes after total aortic arch replacement. METHODS Each surgeon was rated from 1 to 5, and a surgical team’s score was calculated (operating surgeon + assisting surgeon = team score) by relying on each member’s experience. A composite end point (mortality, stroke or spinal cord injury) was defined. RESULTS Total aortic arch replacement was performed in 264 patients by 19 cardiovascular surgeons. Analysis revealed that the composite end point was attained more frequently when the team score was <7 (n = 23; 29%) than >7 (n = 35; 19%) (P = 0.015). There was a significant difference depending on the surgeon’s experience [3 = 23 (35%); 4 = 9 (22%); 5 = 26 (17%); P = 0.008] and whether he was equally experienced (n = 9, 45%) or not as the assisting surgeon (n = 49, 20%; P = 0.015). Logistic regression revealed age >70 years [OR 2.93 (1.52–5.66); P = 0.001], previous stroke [OR 3.02 (1.36–6.70); P = 0.007], acute type A aortic dissection [OR 2.58 (1.08–6.13); P = 0.033], previous acute kidney injury [OR 2.27 (1.01–5.14); P = 0.049] and 2 surgeons with the same experience [OR 4.01 (1.47–10.96); P = 0.007] as predictors for the composite end point. CONCLUSIONS Total aortic arch replacement is equally safe whether an experienced surgeon carries it out or assists the procedure. A less experienced team may raise the risk for postoperative complications. Our data suggest an association of equally experienced surgeons in a team with worse outcomes than teams possessing different experience levels.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety and efficacy of recannulating the axillary artery in reoperative proximal thoracic aortic surgery. METHODS Between 2008 and 2020, we evaluated patients who underwent reoperative proximal thoracic aortic surgery. The patients were divided into 2 groups: (i) patients with no previous right axillary artery cannulation (primary cannulation group) and (ii) patients with a previous cannulated right axillary artery (recannulation group). We analysed the intraoperative data, cannulation-related complications, postoperative outcomes and compared the 2 groups (primary cannulation versus recannulation). RESULTS The patient (n = 132) baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. There was no statistically significant difference in regard to the duration of surgery, cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamp and antegrade cerebral perfusion time nor in regard to the total number of patients with cannulation-related complications between the 2 groups [n = 8 (8.0%) vs n = 1 (3.1%), P = 0.34]. The incidence of iatrogenic axillary artery dissection, iatrogenic aortic dissection, iatrogenic aortic dissection leading to death, axillary artery thrombosis, need for surgical repair, brachial plexus injury rates, malperfusion, high perfusion resistance and hyperperfusion syndrome revealed no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). There were 11 (11.0%) cases of stroke in the primary cannulation group and 1 (3.1%) in the recannulation group (P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS Recannulation of the right axillary artery in reoperative proximal thoracic aortic surgery is not associated with worse clinical outcomes and can be safely and effectively performed, also representing a preventive and rescue measure. Previous cannulation of the axillary artery should not hinder the decision for recannulation.