Enrico Ferrari

Objective: The infection of the endograft after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. Unfortunately, clinical reports, large case-series or randomized studies are scarce or not available yet, and the optimal management of this complication is under debate. The aim of this review is collecting and analysing data on current practice and outcomes for the treatment of infected endografts after TEVAR. Methods: A search on PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies reporting endograft infections after TEVAR was conducted up to January 2023. Data on study design, patients demographic, infection (time from TEVAR to infection, vascular imaging, bacterial samples), clinical strategies, outcome and follow-up were extracted and analysed. The outcome after surgical and conservative treatment was compared. Results: Thirty-six articles (5 case-series; 31 case reports) were deemed eligible for this review. A total of 57 patients (mean age: 62.5 ± 13.9 years) with endograft infections after TEVAR were included. Fever and pain were the two major clinical presentations. Mean time from TEVAR to diagnosis was 19.7 ± 36.4 months. The top four isolated microorganism were Staphylococcus aureus (25%), Candida albicans (15.6%), Streptococcus (12.5%) and Pseudomonas (7.8%). Patients were treated conservatively (36.8%) or surgically (63.2%). Surgical treatments were extra-anatomic aortic bypass (50%), in-situ aortic replacement (38.9%) and graft preservation (11.1%). Overall hospital mortality was 33.3% (30-day mortality: 26.4%). The mortality was 52.4% after conservative treatment and 22.2% after surgery ( p = 0.0397). Among patients who underwent surgery, the mortality was 28.6% after in-situ aortic replacement and 22.2% after extra-anatomic aortic bypass ( p = 0.5387). Major in-hospital causes of death after surgery were multiple organ failure and respiratory failure (6/8 patients). Conclusion: Endograft infection after TEVAR is rare but it carries a high risk of mortality. In selected patients, the surgical treatment seems to be safer, with a lower mortality rate when compared to alternative conservative options.

Background: The outcome of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) can be affected by coexisting tricuspid regurgitation (TR). The aim of the study is to investigate the clinical results of patients undergoing TAVR with or without concomitant significant TR. Methods: Patients undergoing TAVR were divided into two groups according to TR severity: none/mild TR (low-grade) and moderate/severe TR (significant). Data were analysed and compared. Primary endpoint was the mortality 1-year. Secondary endpoints were re-hospitalization and the degree of postoperative and 1-year TR. Results: TAVR procedures were performed in 345 patients between September 2011 and February 2020. Median STS score was 4.3% (IQR: 2.6–7.2), median LVEF was 59.0% (IQR: 45.0–62.0), median aortic area was 0.70cm² (IQR: 0.60–0.86), median mean gradient was 43.0mmHg (IQR: 36.0–53.0). Before TAVR, 297 patients (86.1%) had low-grade TR and 48 (13.9%) significant TR. Mean age was 82.4 ± 5.7 and 83.8 ± 6.2 years in low-grade and significant TR group, respectively (p = 0.109), with 47.5% (low-grade TR) and 56.3% (significant TR) of female patients (p = 0.279). Patients showed differences in EuroSCORE-II (3.2% (IQR: 1.9–5.7) in low-grade TR vs. 5.6% (IQR: 3.7–8.1) in significant TR; p < 0.001), impaired right ventricular function (3.0% vs. 20.8%; p < 0.001) and pulmonary hypertension (9.1% vs. 39.6%; p < 0.001). Mean valve size was 27.7 ± 2.9 mm. Hospital mortality was 2.0% in low-grade TR and 4.2% in significantTR patients (p = 0.308). Among discharged patients (n = 337), seven patients died within 30 days (2.0% low-grade TR; 2.1% significant TR; logrank test p = 0.154) and 40 were re-hospitalized for heart failure (11.1% low-grade TR; 14.6% significant TR; p = 0.470). After one year, 26 patients died, corresponding to a mortality of 7.9 deaths per 100-person year (95% CI 5.2–12.0) in low-grade TR group and 9.1 deaths per 100-person year (95% CI 3.4–24.3) in significant TR group (logrank test p = 0.815), with HR (low grade vs. significant TR) of 0.87, 95% CI 0.26–2.89. Re-hospitalization for heart failure was 16.5% and 19.6% for low-grade and significant TR, respectively (p = 0.713). Echocardiographic and functional changes over time showed no significant interaction between TR and time. Conclusions: In our experience, patients undergoing TAVR showed similar 30-day and 1-year outcome and re-hospitalization rate, regardless of the degree of concomitant tricuspid regurgitation.

Objective: Aorto-esophageal fistula (AEF) is a rare condition consisting in a fistula between the aorta and the esophagus. The thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become an accepted treatment for initial AEF management, but large series are not available and outcomes are questionable. This study aims at evaluating the current evidence of TEVAR in AEF. Methods: A search on PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted up to June 2023. Data on article type, patients’ demographics, cause and type of AEF, clinical presentation, time from clinical presentation to TEVAR, strategies, mortality, and follow-up were analyzed. Results: 106 reports published between 1997 and 2023 were deemed eligible for this study (92 case reports; 14 case-series). A total of 163 patients (mean age: 58.9±16.5 years), diagnosed with AEF and treated with TEVAR (with or without staged surgical repair of the esophagus or the aorta) were included. A thoracic aortic aneurysm (34.4%) was the most common cause of AEF, followed by esophageal cancer (25.2%), foreign body in esophagus (13.5%) and post-TEVAR complication (9.8%). Primary AEF were 129 (79.1%), and secondary AEF were 34 (20.9%). TEVAR alone was performed 80 times (49.1%), while TEVAR with staged esophageal or aortic surgery 83 times (50.9%). The overall 30-day mortality was 11.7% (n=19): 18.8% in TEVAR alone and 4.8% in TEVAR with staged surgery, respectively (p=0.006). Mean follow-up time was 12.3±14.7 months. The overall 6-month mortality was 34.4% (n=56): 48.8% in TEVAR alone and 20.5% in TEVAR with staged surgery (p<0.001). Bleeding for recurrence of AEF and sepsis were the main causes of death. Conclusions: In case of AEF, TEVAR can be urgently performed for bleeding management and hemodynamic control. TEVAR alone is a valuable yet not definitive procedure. Instead, TEVAR followed by surgical repair may provide better outcomes and should be recommended, when possible. Clinical Impact: This review summarizes the published papers on endovascular aortic repair for the treatment of aorto-esophageal fistulae. The clinicians can find several important details on how to manage the presence of an esophageal fistulae wich represents a potential life-threatening problem for the patients. The implantation of a thoracic endovascular aortic prosthesis represents a fast and reliable procedure in case of emergency but a second step surgical repair provides better outcomes and should be recommended in suitable patients.

Introduction: Some evidence suggests that surgical minimally invasive (MIDCAB) and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are safe and potentially effective at short-term follow-up. Data on long-term outcomes are more limited and inconclusive. Methods: Between February 2013 and December 2023, a total of 1997 patients underwent surgical coronary artery revascularization at our institution, of whom, 92 (4.7%) received left anterior mini-thoracotomy access (MIDCAB), either isolated (N = 78) or in combination with percutaneous coronary intervention (N = 14, HCR group). Results: After a median follow-up of 75 months (range 3.1: 149 months), cardiac mortality was 0% while overall mortality was 3%, with one in-hospital mortality and two additional late deaths. Conversion to sternotomy happened in two patients (2.1%), and surgical re-explorations occurred in five patients (4.6%), of whom three for bleeding and two for graft failure. All patients received left internal mammary (LIMA) to left anterior descending artery (LAD) grafting (100%). In the HCR group, 10 patients (72%) showed percutaneous revascularization (PCI) after MIDCAB, showing PCI on a mean of 1.6 ± 0.6 vessels and implanting 2.1 ± 0.9 drug-eluting stents. Conclusions: MIDCAB, in isolation or in association with hybrid coronary revascularization, is associated with encouraging short- and long-term results in selected patients discussed within a dedicated heart-team.

Background: An unexplained condition that follows transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is platelet count reduction (PR). According to published research, patients with balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) had a greater PR than those with self-expandable valves (SEVs). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence and clinical effects of PR following TAVI. Methods: In total, 1.122 adult TAVI patients were enrolled. Propensity score matching was carried out in a 1:1 ratio between patients with BEVs and those with SEVs. The analysis included changes in platelet count, in-hospital mortality, and early postoperative adverse events. Results: Notably, 632 patients were matched (BEV:316; SEV:316). All patients’ post-procedural platelet counts changed according to a parabolic curve, using a mixed regression model for repeated analyses (estimate = −0.931; standard error = 0.421; p = 0.027). The platelet count varied comparably in patients with BEVs and SEVs (estimate = −4.276, standard error = 4.760, p = 0.369). The average time for obtaining the nadir platelet count value was three days after implantation (BEV: 146 (108–181) vs. SEV: 149 (120–186); p = 0.142). Overall, 14.6% of patients (92/632) had post-procedural platelet count p = 0.266). Thrombocytopenia was found to be significantly linked to blood product transfusions, lengthier stays in the intensive care unit and hospital, and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: TAVI, irrespective of the type of implanted valve, is linked to a significant but temporary PR. Thrombocytopenia increases the risk of serious complications and in-hospital death in TAVI patients. To explore and clarify the causes and associated effects, further prospective research is necessary.

We demonstrate the Nicks operation, one of the posterior aortic root enlargement procedures, on a preclinical model (porcine heart). The goal of this operation is to facilitate the implementation of a suitably sized aortic prosthetic valve. The procedure is performed by making a longitudinal incision through the non-coronary sinus without entering the fibrous body between the aortic valve and the anterior leaflet of the mitral valve and inserting a patch to enlarge the annulus.

Background: In view of the rising global burden of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, its early recognition and treatment is key. Although patients with classical low‐flow, low‐gradient (C‐LFLG) aortic stenosis have higher rates of death after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) when compared with patients with high‐gradient (HG) aortic stenosis, there is conflicting evidence on the death rate in patients with severe paradoxical low‐flow, low‐gradient (P‐LFLG) aortic stenosis. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes in real‐world patients with severe HG, C‐LFLG, and P‐LFLG aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI. Methods and Results: Clinical outcomes up to 5 years were addressed in the 3 groups of patients enrolled in the prospective, national, multicenter SwissTAVI registry. A total of 8914 patients undergoing TAVI at 15 heart valve centers in Switzerland were analyzed for the purpose of this study. We observed a significant difference in time to death at 1 year after TAVI, with the lowest observed in HG (8.8%) aortic stenosis, followed by P‐LFLG (11.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16–1.56]; P P P P <0.001). Conclusions: Up to 5 years after TAVI, patients with P‐LFLG have higher death rates than patients with HG aortic stenosis but lower death rates than patients with C‐LFLG aortic stenosis.

Objective: Small-diameter endografts can be used for the treatment of the peripheral vascular disease, but the patency rate during the follow-up is still under debate. With this review, we aimed at analyzing the mid-term patency of small-diameter Viabahn stent-grafts and investigating the relationship between patency and the length of the graft. Methods: We performed a review of articles published until September 2020 and reporting use of ≤7-mm-diameter Viabahn stent-grafts in diseased peripheral arteries. Data on study type, demographic, lesion length, stent-graft diameter, length, and patency (1-year, 3-year, 5-year primary patency, primary-assisted patency, and secondary patency), follow-up, endoleak, and re-intervention rates were extracted and analyzed. A statistical test was applied to identify a correlation between stent-graft length and patency. Results: 16 retrospective and 7 prospective studies reported the outcome of 1613 patients (mean age: 69.6±33.7 years). There was considerable heterogeneity in reporting standards among studies. The diameter of Viabahn stent-grafts ranged 5 to 7mm and the average length was 23.6±12.4cm. Heparin-bonded grafts were used in 46.4% of cases. Mean follow-up time was 26.4±17.6 months. The 1- and 5-year primary patency rate was 75.7% (95% CI, 73.6%–77.8%) and 46.8% (95% CI, 41.0%–52.6%), respectively. The 1- and 5-year primary-assisted patency rate was 80.9% (95% CI, 73.9%–87.8%) and 60.9% (95% CI, 46.4–75.5%), respectively. The 1- and 5-year second-assisted patency was 90.4% (95% CI, 87.4%–93.3%) and 73.7% (95% CI, 64.7%–82.8%), respectively. No correlation between the stent-graft length and patency was found. Conclusions: Small-diameter Viabahn stent-graft implantation represents a safe treatment for patients with peripheral artery disease, and the mid-term patency rate seems not be affected by the length of the graft. Clinical Impact: The use of small diameter stent-grafts for peripheral vascular disease is an established technique but the patency rate is still under debate. With this review we have investigated the relationship between the mid-term patency and the diameter of the stent-grafts. Afterv having analysed data from 23 published studies including 1613 patients we can conclude that the treatment of the peripheral artery disease with small diameter stent-grafts is safe and the mid-term patency rate seems not be affected by the lenght of the grafts.

Aims of the Study: We evaluated the clinical outcome and the hemodynamic and freedom from structural valve degeneration of two standard aortic bioprostheses. Methods: Clinical results, echocardiographic findings and follow-up data of patients operated for isolated or combined aortic valve replacement with the Perimount or the Trifecta bioprosthesis were prospectively collected, retrospectively analysed and compared. We weighted all the analyses by the inverse of the propensity of choosing either valves. Results: Between April 2015 and December 2019, 168 consecutive patients (all comers) underwent aortic valve replacement with Trifecta (n = 86) or Perimount (n = 82) bioprostheses. Mean age was 70.8 ± 8.6 and 68.8 ± 8.6 years for the Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (p = 0.120). Perimount patients presented a greater body mass index (27.6 ± 4.5 vs. 26.0 ± 4.2; p = 0.022), and 23% of them suffered from angina functional class 2–3 (23.2% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.002). Mean ejection fraction was 53.7 ± 11.9% (Trifecta) and 54.5 ± 10.4% (Perimount) (p = 0.994), with mean gradients of 40.4 ± 15.9 mmHg (Trifecta) and 42.3 ± 20.6 mmHg (Perimount) (p = 0.710). Mean EuroSCORE-II was 7 ± 11% and 6 ± 9% for the Trifecta and Perimount group, respectively (p = 0.553). Trifecta patients more often underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (45.3% vs. 26.8%; p = 0.016) and annulus enlargement (10.5% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.058). All-cause mortality at 30 days was 3.5% (Trifecta) and 8.5% (Perimount), (p = 0.203) while new pacemaker implantation (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) and stroke rate (1.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.609) were similar. Acute MACCE were observed in 5% (Trifecta) and 9% (Perimount) of patients with an unweighted OR of 2.22 (95%CI 0.64–7.66; p = 0.196) and a weighted OR of 1.10 (95%CI: 0.44–2.76, p = 0.836). Cumulative survival at 24 months was 98% (95%CI: 0.91–0.99) and 96% (95%CI: 0.85–0.99) for Trifecta and Perimount groups, respectively (log-rank test; p = 0.555). The 2-year freedom from MACCE was 94% (95%CI: 0.65–0.99) for Trifecta and 96% (95%CI: 0.86–0.99) for Perimount (log-rank test; p = 0.759, HR 1.46 (95%CI: 0.13–16.48)) in the unweighted analysis (not estimable in the weighted analysis). During the follow-up (median time: 384 vs. 593 days; p = 0.0001) there were no re-operations for structural valve degeneration. Mean valve gradient at discharge was lower for Trifecta across all valve sizes (7.9 ± 3.2 vs. 12.1 ± 4.7 mmHg; p < 0.001), but the difference did not persist during follow-up (8.2 ± 3.7 mmHg for Trifecta, 8.9 ± 3.6 mmHg for Perimount; p = 0.224); Conclusions: Postoperative outcome and mid-term follow-up were similar. An early better hemodynamic performance was detected for the Trifecta valve but did not persist over time. No difference in the reoperation rate for structural valve degeneration was found.