Differences in Mid-Term Outcomes Between Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Aneurysm or Acute Aortic Syndromes: Report From the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment

Purpose: To analyze differences in baseline characteristics, overall mortality, device-related mortality, and re-intervention rates in patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) with atherosclerotic/degenerative cause or acute aortic syndrome (AAS), using the Global Registry For Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT). Materials and Methods: Patients submitted to TEVAR for AAS or DTAA, included in GREAT, were eligible for this analysis. Primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were 30-day aorta-related mortality and re-intervention rate, 1-year and 3-year all-cause mortality, aorta-related mortality and re-intervention rate. Results: Five-hundred and seventy-five patients were analyzed (305 DTAA and 270 AAS). Thirty-day mortality rate was 1.3% and 1.8% for DTAA and AAS, respectively (p=0.741). One-year and 3-year mortality rates were 6.2% versus 9.3 and 17.3% versus 15.9% for DTAA and AAS, respectively (p=0.209 and p=0.655, respectively). Aorta-related mortality rates at 30 days, 1 year and 3 years were 1.3%, 1.3%, and 2.6% for DTAA, 1.8%, 4.2%, and 4.2% for AAS (p=ns). Re-intervention rates at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years were 1.3%, 4.3%, and 7.5% for DTAA, 3.3%, 8.1%, and 10.7% for AAS (p=ns). Furthermore, a specific analysis with similar outcomes was performed dividing follow-up in 3 periods (1-30 days, 31-365 days, 366-1096 days) and describing mutual differences between 2 groups and temporal trends in each group. Conclusion Patients who underwent TEVAR for DTAA or AAS experienced different mortality and re-intervention rates among years during mid-term follow-up. Although all-cause related deaths within 30 days were TEVAR-related, aorta-related deaths were more common for AAS patients within 1 year. A greater re-intervention rate was described for AAS patients, although only 1 year after TEVAR.

A New Era of Diagnosis and Therapy in Acute Aortic Syndromes: The Mainz–Essen Experience (Part II)—Management and Outcomes

Over the years, the cardiovascular department of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz-West-German Heart Centre in Essen (Germany) designed and implemented the hybrid operating room (2003) along with advanced endovascular and surgical procedures, including the frozen elephant trunk technique. For the study purpose, the Mainz–Essen experience on acute aortic syndromes was summarized by considering original articles from single-center or multicenter studies performed at West German Heart Centre, Essen, Germany, or at the cardiovascular department of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. We present the 35-year-long Mainz–Essen research, education, and patient management journey in creating an integrated multidisciplinary “Aortic Center” in the heart of Europe.

Initiating a New Era of Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy in Acute Aortic Syndromes: The Mainz–Essen Experience (Part I)—Imaging and Biomarkers

Acute aortic syndromes (AAS) encompass a group of life-threatening medical conditions (acute aortic dissection [AAD], intramural hematoma, and penetrating aortic ulcer) with a common pathophysiological pathway. Due to overlapping symptoms and signs with other cardiovascular emergencies, the diagnosis remains challenging resulting in time delays and related increased in-hospital and long-term morbidity and mortality. The Cardiovascular Department of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz at West-German Heart Centre in Essen (Germany) first described (in 1984) AAD by transesophageal echocardiography, AAD diagnostic features, and furtherly explored the implementation of “invasive” imaging techniques, namely, intravascular ultrasound and intraluminal phased-array imaging. Furthermore, pioneer studies were undertaken on the biomarker and imaging interplay, namely, D-dimer and F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. We discuss the unique 35-year-long Mainz–Essen experience on the diagnostic and prognostic role of serological and imaging biomarkers in AAS.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care of patients with acute aortic conditions

Background The outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic catastrophically interrupted medical care systems causing substantial decrease in the admission of patients and consecutively a sharp decline in the number of surgeries and interventions. In several European countries, the nationwide lockdown severely restricted movement which may have contributed to this phenomenon on top of anxiety of patients to contract COVID-19 when admitted to hospital. Purpose The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic onto acute and elective thoracic aortic surgeries and interventions and to compare the data with the same period in 2019 in a single aortic centre. Methods Information on admission and surgery/intervention was extracted from hospital electronic record system. Patients who were admitted for treatment of aortic conditions between January 1st to June 30th both in 2019 and 2020 were identified and selected for this analysis. The time from referral to admission and surgery/intervention was noted for service delay analysis. Aortopathies were classified as type A aortic dissection, type B aortic dissection, aortic aneurysm and others. In a daily central hub meeting, urgency was defined as emergent (operation required before the next working day), urgent (operation needed within 48 hours), and elective. Patients' condition and comorbidities were represented by ACEF II score. Results Total case volume of 81 in 2019 reference period was reduced to 70 in 2020 (−14%). Elective cases significantly declined from 59 (72.8%) in 2019 to 30 (42.8%) in 2020 (−49%). Urgent and emergent cases were performed more frequently in 2020 with 40 cases versus 22 in 2019 (+45%). The ACEF II score showed no difference for patients in both periods (2.1±1.9 vs. 2.5±2.1, p=0.221), however, a trend to higher ACEF II score in 2020 consistent with a higher proportion of urgent and emergent cases. The overall in-hospital delay (from admission to surgery) was not significant affected with 1 (IQR 1–2) versus 1 (IQR 0–2); p=0.991. However, with the official declaration of a pandemic and introduction of restrictions, no in-hospital delay was documented. In-hospital mortality was observed lower in 2019 as compared in 2020 (6.1% vs 11.4%, P=0.251). Conclusion The first wave of COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the aortic service, however, acute care for urgent thoracic aortic conditions and subsequent procedures even increased compared to 2019 as a result of both centralised allocation system and decline of elective cases. Acute aortic syndromes were managed despite COVID-19 according to current guidelines. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Impact of COVID on aortic case load