Browsing by Author "Jankovic, Natasa (37026154700)"

Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of silent coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and assess long-term prognosis in terms of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective study conducted at the Clinic for Cardiac Surgery, University Clinical Center of Serbia, in asymptomatic patients with severe AS, normal LVEF and stress test without signs of myocardial ischemia. Adverse cardiovascular events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction and any hospitalization due to heart disease) was monitored during one year of follow up. Results: A total of 116 asymptomatic patients with severe AS were included in the study. The average age was 67.3 ± 9.6 years, and 56.9% of patients were men. The most common cause of AS was degenerative valvular disease (83.5%). The incidence of significant CAD was 30 out of 116 patients (25.9%). The median Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality score was 1.62% (25th to 75th percentile: 1.15–2.76%). The overall mean gradient across aortic valve (Pmean) was 52.30 mmHg ± 12.16, and the mean indexed AVA (AVAi) was 0.37 ± 0.09 cm2/m2. The mean LVEF was 68.40% ± 8.01%. Early surgery for aortic valve replacement was performed in 55 patients (55.2%), while 52 (44.8%) patients received conservative treatment. Twenty-two patients (42.3%) in the conservative treatment group underwent surgery during follow up. There were a total of 44 (37.9%) patients with MACE during one year of follow up. Univariate Cox regression analyses identified the following significant risk factors for MACE-free survival: presence of CAD and early conservative treatment (p = 0.004), age (p = 0.003), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.016) and STS score (p = 0.039). According to multivariate analysis, the presence of CAD with early conservative treatment was the most important predictor of MACE-free survival in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions: Early surgery for aortic valve replacement in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and concomitant CAD is beneficial for long-term survival. © 2024 by the authors.

Background and Objectives: Despite advances in surgical techniques, industry adjuncts, and cerebral perfusion techniques, the in-hospital mortality rate of type A acute dissection (TAAD) remains at 15–30%. This study aimed to investigate the influence of different extents of aortic resection on survival and quality of life (QoL) after long-term follow-up. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational trial was performed, including 165 patients operated upon for TAAD. Patients were divided into two groups according to the extent of their aortic repair: the first group comprised patients who had ascending aorta replacement and the second included patients who had hemiarch or total arch replacement. The groups were compared with regard to their baseline characteristics, operative characteristics, survival, complications, and QoL during nine years of follow-up. Results: The mean follow-up time was 75.6 months (1–108 months). The mean survival in the ascending aorta repair group was 89.651 (81.242–98.061) months and was 54.801 (40.053–69.548) months in the hemiarch and arch group; the difference between the groups was significant (log-rank p < 0.001). The rate of new postoperative neurological deficits was statistically higher in the hemiarch and arch group (17.5% vs. 8.4%, p = 0.045), the most common being stroke, and was also more frequent in the hemiarch and arch group than in the ascending aorta group (with statistical significance (15.7% vs. 6.5%)). The mean SF-12 physical score from the QoL questionnaire was higher in the ascending aorta replacement group than in the hemiarch and arch group (50.1 ± 7.3 vs. 44.0 ± 11.9, p = 0.017). Additionally, the mean SF-12 mental score was higher in the ascending aorta replacement group (52.3 ± 7.3 vs. 47.1 ± 12.8, p = 0.032). Conclusions: A more aggressive approach involving aortic arch repair means a lower survival rate and lesser quality of life after long-term follow-up in comparison with the replacement of the ascending aorta. If clinically applicable, a more defensive strategy may be considered. © 2023 by the authors.