Atrial approaches in mitral valve surgery: a propensity analysis of differences in the incidence of clinically relevant adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: The lack of evidence on complications using mitral valve approaches leaves the choice of risk exposure to the surgeon's preference, based on individual experience, speed, ease, and quality of exposure. METHODS: The present study analysed patients undergoing mitral valve surgery using a superior transseptal approach or a left-atrial approach between 2006 and 2018. We included first-time elective mitral valve procedures, isolated, or combined, without a history of rhythm disturbances. We used propensity score matching based on 26 perioperative variables. The primary endpoint was the association between the superior transeptal approach and clinically significant adverse outcomes, including arrhythmias, need for a permanent pacemaker, cerebrovascular events, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 652 patients met the inclusion criteria; 391 received the left atrial approach, and 261 received the superior transseptal approach. After matching, 96 patients were compared with 69 patients, respectively. The distribution of the preoperative and perioperative variables was similar. There was no difference in the incidence of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias or the need for treatment. The incidence of nodal rhythm (p = 0.008) and length of stay in intensive care (p = 0.04) were higher in the superior transseptal group, but the need for permanent pacemaker implantation was the same. Likewise, there was no difference in the need for anticoagulation due to arrhythmia, the incidence of cerebrovascular events or mortality in the postoperative period or in the long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: We did not find an association with permanent heart rhythm disorders or any other significant adverse clinical outcome. Therefore, the superior transeptal approach is useful and safe for mitral valve exposure.

A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma.

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) to determine the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasound (US) compared with a pericardial window (PW) for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma. METHODS: A literature search in five databases identified relevant articles for inclusion in this SR and MA. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of chest US, compared with a PW, for the diagnosis of occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients presenting with penetrating thoracic trauma. Two investigators independently assessed articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria and selected studies for final analysis. Methodological quality was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. We performed a MA of binary diagnostic test accuracy within the bivariate mixed-effects logistic regression modeling framework. RESULTS: We included five studies in our SR and MA. These studies included a total of 556 trauma patients. The MA found that, compared with PW, the US was 79% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients. The presence of a concomitant left hemothorax was frequent in patients with false-negative results. CONCLUSION: This SR and MA found that, compared with PW, US was 79% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting occult penetrating cardiac injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating thoracic trauma. Caution interpretation of pericardial US results is suggested in the presence of left hemothorax. In these cases, a second diagnostic test should be performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, level II.