@article{ACS16919,
author = {Olaf Mercier and Clément Dubost and Amélie Delaporte and Thibault Genty and Dominique Fabre and Delphine Mitilian and Antoine Girault and Justin Issard and Arash Astaneh and Jean-Baptiste Menager and Gaelle Dauriat and Sacha Mussot and Mitja Jevnikar and Xavier Jais and Marc Humbert and Gérald Simonneau and Philippe Dartevelle and Iolando Ion and François Stephan and Philippe Brenot and Elie Fadel},
title = {Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy: The Marie Lannelongue Hospital experience},
journal = {Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery},
volume = {11},
number = {2},
year = {2022},
keywords = {},
abstract = {Background: Targeted medical therapy and balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) entered the field of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) treatment in the early 2010’s. Multimodal therapy is emerging as the new gold standard for CTEPH management. Whether this change of paradigm impacted early outcomes of pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) remains unknown. Our aim is to report our surgical experience in the era of CTEPH multimodal management.
Methods: Patients who underwent PEA between 2016 and 2020 were included in the study. Early outcomes were described and compared between three groups of patients: PEA alone, PEA after targeted medical therapy induction and PEA after BPA.
Results: A total of 418 patients, 225 males and 193 females, with a mean age of 59±14 years were included in the study. 336 patients underwent PEA alone, 69 after medical targeted therapy induction and 13 after unilateral BPA. Baseline preoperative pulmonary vascular resistance [4.99 (IQR, 1.71–8.48), 6.21 (IQR, 4.37–8.1), 5.03 (IQR, 4.44–7.19) wood units (WU), P=0.230, respectively] and PEA effectiveness [% decrease mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP), −24 (IQR, 7–42), −25 (IQR, 7–35), −23 (IQR, 3–29), P=0.580] did not differ between groups. Compared to PEA alone and PEA+BPA, the medical therapy induction group represented the most challenging group with higher baseline mPAP (45±10 vs. 42±11 and 43±11 mmHg, P=0.047), longer circulatory arrest time (30.1±15 vs. 26.6±10 and 19.6±6 min, P=0.005), higher post-PEA extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use (20.6% vs. 8.7 and 9.1%, P=0.004), higher duration on mechanical ventilation [4 (IQR, 1–12) vs. 1 (IQR, 0.5–5) and 2 (IQR, 1–3) days, P=0.005], higher complication rate (85.5% vs. 74.6% and 76.9%, P=0.052) and higher 90-day mortality (13% vs. 3.9% and 0%, P=0.002). Compared to PEA and PEA+ medical therapy induction groups, patients in the BPA induction group were older [72 (IQR, 62–76) vs. 60 (IQR, 48–69) and 62 (IQR, 52–72) years, P=0.005], and underwent shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (191.9±47.9 vs. 222±107.2 and 236.8±46.4 min, P<0.001), aortic cross clamping (54.8±21 vs. 82.7±31.4 and 80.1±32.9 min, P=0.002) and circulatory arrest time (19.6±6.2 vs. 26.6±10.8 and 30.1±15.1 min, P=0.008).
Conclusions: Multimodal therapy approach to CTEPH patients did not affect effectiveness of PEA. Medical therapy and BPA could act in synergy with surgery to treat more challenging patients.},
issn = {2304-1021}, url = {https://www.annalscts.com/article/view/16919}
}