Interrupted aortic arch (IAA) is defined as the loss of luminal continuity between the ascending and descending aorta and is classified based on the anatomic level of interruption. IAA is associated with a number of intracardiac anomalies with the most common being patent ductus arteriosus, ventricular septal defect, and left ventricular outflow obstruction. There is also a strong association between type B interruption and 22q11 deletion syndrome. The perioperative management of the neonate with IAA begins in the intensive care unit with optimization of end-organ perfusion and function. Survival depends on the prompt initiation of prostaglandin E1 in order to maintain ductal patency, careful management of the patient's ratio of pulmonary to systemic blood flow (Qp:Qs), and a thorough understanding of the physiologic implications of the surgical plan, type of interruption, and associated syndromes and anomalies. This review will focus on the anatomy, physiology, and perioperative anesthetic management considerations specific to the management of IAA.

Background: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) require specific anesthetic and hemodynamic considerations. We report the specific anesthetic preparation and management in this scenario. Case presentation: We present the case of a 66-year-old male with a HeartMate II LVAD undergoing robotic prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the steep Trendelenburg position. We employed central venous and radial arterial access, LVAD pump parameters, near-infrared sensor of cerebral oximetry, and transesophageal echocardiography for monitoring. Hemodynamics were managed with nicardipine, dobutamine, epinephrine, and phenylephrine during abdominal insufflation, operative positioning, and desufflation. The patient had a successful procedure, was discharged on postoperative day 2, and achieved surgical cure of his prostate cancer. Discussion: By presenting the first detailed account of anesthetic management in this scenario, we provide a clinical vignette for use by the clinical anesthesiologist in his or her preparation prior to caring for this type of patient.

Novel measures of the stenotic MV 3DOA in patients with rheumatic heart disease are significantly smaller than calculated values obtained by conventional methods and may be consistent with a higher incidence of severe MS compared to 2D techniques. Further investigation is warranted to determine the clinical relevance of 3D echocardiographic techniques used to measure MV area.

BACKGROUND: Currently available 2-dimensional (2D) echocardiographic methods for accurately assessing the mitral valve orifice area (MVA) after mitral valve repair (MVr) are limited due to its complex 3-dimensional (3D) geometry. We compared repaired MVAs obtained with commonly used 2D and 3D echocardiographic methods to a 3D orifice area (3DOA), which is a novel echocardiographic measurement and independent of geometric assumptions. METHODS: Intraoperative 2D and 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) images from 20 adult cardiac surgery patients who underwent MVr for mitral regurgitation obtained immediately after repair were retrospectively reviewed. MVAs obtained by pressure half-time (PHT), 2D planimetry (2DP), and 3D planimetry (3DP) were compared to those derived by 3DOA. RESULTS: MVAs (mean value ± standard deviation [SD]) after MVr were obtained by PHT (3 ± 0.6 cm2), 2DP (3.58 ± 0.75 cm2), 3D planimetry (3DP; 2.78 ± 0.74 cm2), and 3DOA (2.32 ± 0.76 cm2). MVAs obtained by the 3DOA method were significantly smaller compared to those obtained by PHT (mean difference, 0.68 cm2; P = .0003), 2DP (mean difference, 1.26 cm2; P < .0001), and 3DP (mean difference, 0.46 cm2; P = .003). In addition, MVA defined as an area ≤1.5 cm2 was identified by 3DOA in 2 patients and by 3DP in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: Post-MVr MVAs obtained using the novel 3DOA method were significantly smaller than those obtained by conventional echocardiographic methods and may be consistent with a higher incidence of MVA reduction when compared to 2D techniques. Further studies are still needed to establish the clinical significance of 3D echocardiographic techniques used to measure MVA after MVr.