Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Aortic Valve Replacement with the Mosaic Ultra Bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported high rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the Mosaic prosthesis. This work assesses the incidence of PPM after AVR with a modified version of the Mosaic prosthesis, the Mosaic Ultra. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the data of 532 patients who underwent AVR with implantation of the Mosaic Ultra prosthesis in the period 2007-2016 in our institution. Patients were classified according to their indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) to severe (EOAi < 0.65 cm2/m2), moderate (EOAi 0.65-0.85 cm2/m2), and absent/mild PPM (EOAi > 0.85 cm2/m2). In-hospital postoperative outcomes and the impact of PPM on mean transvalvular pressure gradient after stratification by prosthesis size were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 3 (0.6%) patients had severe, 92 (17.3%) moderate, and 437 (82.1%) absent/mild PPM. There was a significant difference in PPM proportions (moderate/severe vs absent/mild PPM) across different prosthesis sizes overall (p < 0.0001), observing gradually increasing rates of PPM with decreasing prosthesis sizes. Patients with moderate/severe PPM had higher mean transvalvular pressure gradients (19 [13-25] vs 13 [10-17] mm Hg, p < 0.0001) than patients with absent/mild PPM. There was a significant difference in mean transvalvular pressure gradient between the different aortic valve prosthesis sizes overall (p < 0.0001), observing gradually increasing gradients with decreasing prosthesis sizes. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing AVR with the smaller sized (19, 21, and 23 mm) Mosaic Ultra aortic valve prostheses exhibit a higher risk for moderate/severe PPM and higher mean aortic transvalvular pressure gradients than patients receiving the larger sized (25, 27, and 29 mm) prostheses.

Thrombocytopenia after Implantation of the Perceval, Intuity, and Sapien Aortic Valve Prostheses.

BACKGROUND: An increased incidence of thrombocytopenia was reported after implantation of the LivaNova Perceval and the Edwards Sapien aortic valve bioprostheses. Aim of this study is to assess the perioperative platelet count and bleeding complications in three different types of aortic valve bioprostheses intended for high-risk patients, the sutureless LivaNova Perceval, the rapid deployment Edwards Intuity, and the transcatheter Edwards Sapien. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the perioperative data of patients receiving the Perceval, Intuity, and Sapien aortic valve bioprosthesis. The platelet count was collected preoperatively, at nadir postoperatively, and at discharge. The bioprostheses were compared for between-group differences in platelet count and postoperative bleeding complications. RESULTS: Overall, 37 patients received the Perceval, 42 the Intuity, and 58 the Sapien bioprosthesis. There was no significant between-group difference in the preoperative platelet count [Perceval 203(178-246)G/l, Intuity 214(190-232)G/l, Sapien 201(178-275)G/l, p = 0.800]. There was a significant between-group difference in the postoperative platelet count, both at nadir value [Perceval 57(37-80)G/l, Intuity 91(73-109)G/l, Sapien 126(105-170)G/l, p < 0.0001] and at discharge [Perceval 150(83-257)G/l, Intuity 239(200-343)G/l, Sapien 232(179-284)G/l, p = 0.001]. There was no significant between-group difference regarding red blood cell transfusions (p = 0.242), platelet transfusions (p = 0.656), and rethoracotomy for bleeding (p = 0.847). CONCLUSION: We found a significant platelet count reduction in all three bioprostheses which was more marked in the Perceval group. The platelet count reduction was transient and fully recovered in the Intuity and Sapien groups, whereas the Perceval group showed only a partial platelet count recovery. However, bleeding complications were not different between the three bioprostheses.

Reducing the red blood cell transfusion threshold from 8·0 g/dl to 7·0 g/dl in acute myeloid leukaemia patients undergoing induction chemotherapy reduces transfusion rates without adversely affecting patient outcome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are needed by almost every acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patient undergoing induction chemotherapy and constitute a cornerstone in supportive measures for cancer patients in general. Randomized controlled trials have shown non-inferiority or even superiority of restrictive transfusion guidelines over liberal transfusion guidelines in specific clinical situations outside of medical oncology. In this study, we analysed whether more restrictive RBC transfusion reduces blood use without affecting hard outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 352 AML patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2018 and undergoing intensive induction chemotherapy were included in this retrospective analysis. In the less restrictive transfusion group, patients received RBC transfusion for haemoglobin levels below 8 g/dl (2007-2014). In the restrictive transfusion group, patients received RBC transfusion for haemoglobin levels below 7 g/dl (2016-2018). Liberal transfusion triggers were never endorsed. RESULTS: A total of 268 (76·1%) and 84 (23·9%) AML patients fell into the less restrictive and restrictive transfusion groups, respectively. The less restrictive transfusion group had 1 g/dl higher mean haemoglobin levels, received their first RBC transfusions earlier and needed 1·5 more units of RBC during the hospital stay of induction chemotherapy. Febrile episodes, C-reactive protein levels, admission to the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay as well as response and survival rates did not differ between the two cohorts. CONCLUSION: From our retrospective analysis, we conclude that a more restrictive transfusion trigger does not affect important outcomes of AML patients. The opportunity to test possible effects of the more severe anaemia in the restrictive transfusion group on quality of life was missed.

Transseptal versus left atrial approach for mitral valve surgery: postoperative need for pacemaker.

OBJECTIVES: Concerns exist about higher rates of pacemaker implantation using the extended superior transseptal approach for mitral valve surgery. This study aims to compare the extended superior transseptal and the left atrial approach regarding the need for pacemaker implantation after mitral valve surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the data of patients undergoing mitral valve surgery through either a sternotomy and transseptal approach or a mini-thoracotomy and left atrial approach in a single centre in the period January 2010 to May 2021. The primary outcome was the evaluation of the postoperative pacemaker implantation rate. RESULTS: Overall, 677 patients were included, 333 with transseptal and 344 with left atrial approach, and 58 (8.6%) patients underwent pacemaker implantation postoperatively. There was no significant difference in the rate of pacemaker implantation between the 2 groups [overall: 34 (10.2%) vs 24 (7%), P = 0.133; for sinus node dysfunction: 12 (3.6%) vs 9 (2.6%), P = 0.459; for high-degree atrioventricular block: 22 (6.6%) vs 15 (4.4%), P = 0.199; transseptal vs left atrial approach, respectively]. A subgroup analysis of the relative effect of transseptal versus left atrial approach on the rate of postoperative pacemaker implantation revealed mitral replacement as a statistically significant confounder (P = 0.019). The exclusion of patients undergoing concomitant cardiac procedures did not lead to a statistically significant difference in the pacemaker implantation rate between the 2 approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the data of these patients shows no significant difference in the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation between the extended superior transseptal and the left atrial approach for mitral valve surgery.