Prevalence and Clinical Impact of Systemic Inflammatory Reaction After Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery induces a systemic inflammatory reaction that has been associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity. Many studies have characterized this reaction through laboratory biomarkers while clinical studies generally are lacking. This study aimed to assess the incidence of postoperative systemic inflammation after cardiac surgery, and the association of postoperative systemic inflammation with preoperative patients' characteristics and postoperative outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Analysis of the overall population and of propensity-matched subgroups. SETTING: Cardiac surgery intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) between June 2016 and June 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Mixed cardiac surgery operations on CPB. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, 502 patients underwent cardiac surgery with CPB. One hundred forty-two patients (28.3%) fulfilled SIRS criteria at 24 hours. After performing a multivariate analysis to adjust for the procedure type and preoperative systemic inflammatory reaction syndrome (SIRS) parameters, the occurrence of SIRS was associated inversely with age and extracardiac arteriopathy, and it was associated positively with preoperative white blood cell count. Vasopressors were used more frequently in SIRS patients who further experienced longer mechanical ventilation time and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). The incidence of a composite outcome including death, transient ischemic attack/stroke, renal replacement therapy, bleeding, postoperative intra-aortic balloon pump insertion, and a length of stay in ICU >96 hours was more frequent in SIRS-positive patients. There was no difference between overall and matched subgroups for in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, the clinical signs of SIRS were detected in a substantial percentage of patients who underwent cardiac surgery. The postoperative SIRS criteria were associated with a more complicated postoperative course and higher postoperative morbidity.

Mid-term results of endoscopic mitral valve repair and insights in surgical techniques for isolated posterior prolapse.

BACKGROUND: The adoption of minimally invasive techniques to perform mitral valve repair surgery is increasing. This is enhanced by the compelling evidence of satisfactory short-term results and lower major morbidity. We analyzed mid-term follow-up results of our experience, and further compared two techniques: isolated leaflet resection and neochord implantation for posterior leaflet prolapse. METHODS: Data for all consecutive endoscopic mitral valve repairs via video-assisted right anterior mini-thoracotomy were analyzed between December 2012 and September 2021. The early and mid-term follow-up results were ascertained. The main outcome was the incidence of mortality and the recurrence of significant mitral regurgitation during follow-up which were summarized by the Kaplan-Meier estimator and compared between treatment arms using the stratified log-rank test. Secondary outcomes were the early-postoperative results including 30-days mortality and the occurrence of major complications. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients were included. Along with ring annuloplasty, 136 (44.4%) patients received posterior leaflet resection (122 isolated) whereas 97 (31.1%) underwent posterior leaflet chords implantation (88 isolated). Forty-nine patients had annuloplasty alone. In-hospital mortality was 1.0%. Mean follow-up was 28.8 ± 22.0 months (maximum 8.3 years). Kaplan-Meier survival rate at 5 years was 97.3 ± 1.0%, mitral regurgitation ([Formula: see text]3+) or valve reoperation free-survival at 5 years was estimated as 94.5 ± 2.3%. Subgroup time-to-event analysis for the indexed outcomes showed no statistical significance between the techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic mitral valve repair is safe and associated with excellent short- and mid-term outcomes. No differences were found between leaflet resection and gore-tex chords implantation for posterior leaflet prolapse.

External aortic cross-clamping and endoaortic balloon occlusion in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has increasingly been used for patients with valvular pathology. Two techniques of aortic occlusion are utilized with this technique: transthoracic aortic clamp (TTC) and endoaortic balloon occlusion (EAO). Both possibilities present peculiar advantages and limitations whose current evidence is based on few observational studies. We performed an analysis with the primary objective to evaluate outcomes and the incidence of major complications of these two techniques. METHODS: The data of 258 patients who underwent minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through right mini-thoracotomy from January 2013 to July 2018 were reviewed. One hundred sixty-five patients were operated on with TTC and in 93 cases EAO was used. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of adverse outcome. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 60.4±13.9 years, patients with TTC were significantly older and had higher EuroSCORE II and reoperations were carried out mostly with EAO. Isolated mitral valve surgery was mostly performed (74%) and in 26% of the cases, other procedures were combined. No differences were detected in terms of types of operation, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times between the two techniques. Similar postoperative troponin I and CK-Mb values were recorded. Twenty-four patients (11%) suffered at least one complication. Of note, a new neurologic deficit occurred in six patients; in four cases a cerebral stroke, with all patients in the EAO group (P=0.06). There was no case of aortic dissection, no patient suffered peripheral ischemia nor femoral vessels complications. Thirty-day mortality was 1.9% (TTC 1.2% vs. EAO 3.2%; P=0.51), 30-day mortality excluding reoperations was 1.2% (TTC 1.2% vs. EAO 1.1%; P=0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques proved to be safe. Although non-statistically significant, there was a higher rate of cerebral stroke in the EAO group. However, EAO system shows technical advantages in avoiding tissue dissection and remains our choice in redo operations.