Mitral valve surgery in acute infective endocarditis: long-term outcomes of mitral valve repair versus replacement.

AIMS: Timing and surgical strategies in acute infective endocarditis are still questionable. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVR) compared with mitral valve replacement [mitral valve prosthesis (MVP)] for acute infective endocarditis. METHODS: From 2004 to 2019, 109 consecutive patients with acute mitral valve infective endocarditis were retrospectively investigated. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical strategy: MVR 53/109 (48.6%) versus MVP 56/109 (51.4%). Primary end points were in-hospital mortality and overall survival at 10 years. Secondary end point was the freedom from infective endocarditis relapse. RESULTS: Our institutional surgical approach for infective endocarditis allowed us to achieve MVR in 48.6% of patients. Hospital mortality was comparable between the two groups [MVR: 1/53 (1.9%) versus MVP: 2/56 (3.6%), P  = 1.000]. Overall 10-year survival was 80.0 ±â€Š14.1 and 77.2 ±â€Š13.5% for MVR and MVP, respectively ( P  = 0.648). MVR showed a lower incidence of infective endocarditis relapse compared with MVP (MVR: 93.6 ±â€Š7.1 versus MVP: 80.9 ±â€Š10.8%, P  = 0.041). At Cox regression, infective endocarditis relapse was an independent risk factor for death (hazard ratio 4.03; 95% confidence interval 1.41-11.52; P  = 0.009). CONCLUSION: The tendency to postpone surgery in stable patients with mitral infective endocarditis allowed achievement of MVR in almost 50% of patients. Although repair remains the approach of choice in our institution, no differences between MVR and MVP were reported in terms of early/late survival. However, MVP had a higher incidence of infective endocarditis relapse that represents an independent risk of mortality.

Sutureless and Rapid Deployment vs. Transcatheter Valves for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Risk Patients: Mid-Term Results.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials showed that TAVI is neither inferior nor superior to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves (SuRD-AVR) when compared to TAVI in low surgical risk patients with isolated aortic stenosis. METHODS: Data from five European Centers were retrospectively collected. We included 1306 consecutive patients at low surgical risk (EUROSCORE II < 4) who underwent aortic valve replacement by means of SuRD-AVR (n = 636) or TAVI (n = 670) from 2014 to 2019. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score was performed, and two balanced groups of 346 patients each were obtained. The primary endpoints of the study were: 30-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. The secondary endpoint was 5-year survival freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was similar between the two groups (SuRD-AVR:1.7%, TAVI:2.0%, p = 0.779), while the TAVI group showed a significantly lower 5-year overall survival and survival freedom from MACCEs (5-year matched overall survival: SuRD-AVR: 78.5%, TAVI: 62.9%, p = 0.039; 5-year matched freedom from MACCEs: SuRD-AVR: 64.6%, TAVI: 48.7%, p = 0.004). The incidence of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) and paravalvular leak grade ≥ 2 (PVL) were higher in the TAVI group. Multivariate Cox Regression analysis identified PPI as an independent predictor for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI patients had a significantly lower five-year survival and survival freedom from MACCEs with a higher rate of PPI and PVL ≥ 2 when compared to SuRD-AVR.

Cost Analysis of Endoscopic Conduit Harvesting Technique Using a Non-Sealed System for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

Objective: Endoscopic vessel harvest (EVH) is evolving as the standard of care for coronary artery bypass grafting. However, the increase in upfront equipment-related costs has resulted in reluctance of uptake globally. We investigated the costs involving a non-sealed technique for EVH versus open vessel harvesting techniques (OVH) for both the greater saphenous vein and radial artery with a 6-month follow-up. Methods: From September 2016 to December 2018, 226 patients underwent OVH while 251 patients underwent EVH using a reusable non-sealed system and a single-use radiofrequency sealing system. Cumulative costs for OVH versus EVH were calculated as a summation of total operative and in-hospital stay costs. Costs related to harvest site complication management were also analyzed for up to 6 months. Results: Total operative costs were greater in the EVH group (Can$2,283.70 [Can$1,377.60 to $4,183.50] vs Can$1,742.40 [Can$998.50 to $3,628.10], P < 0.001). Total length of stay was significantly shorter for the EVH group (5.9 [4 to 43] days vs 6.8 [4 to 55] days, P = 0.018). Cumulative costs were comparable at the end of the hospitalization period (EVH, Can$6,534.70 [Can$2,076.50 to $33,087.70] vs OVH, Can$6,112.50 [Can$3,322.30 to $45,503.50], P = 0.06). After discharge, harvest site-related complications occurred more frequently in the OVH group (27% vs 4.4%, P < 0.001), resulting in increased use of antibiotics (2.2% vs 0.8%, P = 0.02) as well as more frequent requirement for home nursing assistance in the OVH group (5.7% vs 0.8%, P = 0.002) at 6 months of follow-up. Conclusions: Cumulative costs did not show a statistical difference between OVH and EVH, with higher intraoperative costs for EVH being offset by higher harvest site management costs in the OVH group.

Improved Safety of Endoscopic Vessel Harvesting During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated that operating room procedures be modified to ensure the safety of staff and patients. Specifically, procedures that have the potential to create aerosolization must be reassessed, given the risk of viral transmission via aerosolization. We present the use of a nonsealed endoscopic vessel harvesting approach during coronary surgery that does not necessitate the use of CO2 insufflation and utilizes suction through an ultra low particulate filter, thus mitigating the risk of possible viral transmission via aerosolization or surgical smoke production. This approach is technically feasible and can minimize the risk of viral transmission during endoscopic vessel harvesting.