Early Hemodynamic Performance of the Crown PRT Aortic Prosthesis: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, only limited data are available on the rate of hemodynamic progression with clinical outcome in patients receiving the latest Crown PRT aortic prosthesis. The study aim was to report clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in 55 consecutive patients for a follow up of up to one year after Crown PRT implantation. METHODS: Between February and September 2015, a total of 55 patients (34 males, 21 females; mean age 77.3 ± 1.2 years) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the latest LivaNova Crown PRT bioprosthesis at the authors' institution. Left ventricular function was preserved in 79% of patients. Data relating to the patients' clinical, echocardiographic and functional capacities were obtained prospectively. RESULTS: There were no in-hospital deaths. Significant perioperative complications included stroke (3.6%), atrial fibrillation (27%), and permanent pacemaker insertion (1.8%). Pre-discharge echocardiography demonstrated peak (PG) and mean (MG) transprosthetic gradients of 24.4 ± 10.4 mmHg and 12.9 ± 6.2 mmHg, respectively. The Doppler velocity index (DVI) was 0.49 ± 0.13, and the effective orifice area index (EOAi) 0.89 ± 0.12 cm2/m2. At a mean follow up of 1.3 ± 0.3 years, the transprosthetic gradients, DVI and EOAi were not significantly different from postoperative or pre-discharge values. The patients' NYHA status was I or II in 95% of cases, and the mean left ventricular mass had decreased by 36% at the end of follow up. CONCLUSIONS: The Crown PRT is an effective bioprosthesis, with a low incidence of valve-related complications comparable to those of other current bioprostheses. The bioprosthesis demonstrated satisfactory results in terms of hemodynamics and freedom from reoperation.

Initial experience with xenograft bioconduit for the treatment of complex prosthetic valve endocarditis.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of complex prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) with aortic root abscess remains a surgical challenge. Several studies support the use of biological tissues to minimize the risk of recurrent infection. We present our initial surgical experience with the use of an aortic xenograft conduit for aortic valve and root replacement. METHODS: Between October 2013 and August 2015, 15 xenograft bioconduits were implanted for complex PVE with abscess (13.3% female). In 6 patients, concomitant procedures were performed: coronary bypass (n=1), mitral valve replacement (n=5) and tricuspid annuloplasty (n=1). The mean age at operation was 60.3±15.5 years. The mean Logistic European system for cardiac operating risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) was 46.6±23.6. The median follow-up time was 607±328 days (range: 172-1074 days). RESULTS: There were two in-hospital deaths (14.3% mortality), two strokes (14.3%) and seven patients required permanent pacemaker insertion for conduction abnormalities (46.7%). The mean length of hospital stay was 26 days. At pre-discharge echocardiography, the conduit mean gradient was 9.3±3.3mmHg and there was either none (n=6), trace (n=6) or mild aortic insufficiency (n=1). There was no incidence of mid-term death, prosthesis-related complications or recurrent endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: Xenograft bioconduits may be safe and effective for aortic valve and root replacement for complex PVE with aortic root abscess. Although excess early mortality reflects the complexity of the patient population, there was good valve hemodynamics, with no incidence of recurrent endocarditis or prosthesis failure in the mid-term. Our data support the continued use and evaluation of this biological prosthesis in this high-risk patient cohort.

Early in-vivo hemodynamic comparison of supra-annular aortic bioprostheses: Trifecta versus Perimount Magna Ease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The study aim was to compare early postoperative hemodynamic gradients after supra-annular implantation of the Trifecta and Perimount Magna Ease aortic bioprostheses. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2011, a total of 235 patients (105 males, 130 females; mean age at surgery 73.8 +/- 10.2 years) underwent supra-annular aortic valve replacement (AVR), with or without concomitant procedures. The patients were divided into 2 groups receiving either the Perimount Magna Ease (n = 117) or Trifecta (n = 118). Concomitant procedures were performed in 133 patients (56.6%), and 25 procedures (10.6%) were redos. Patients with postoperative severe left ventricular dysfunction and moderate to severe mitral regurgitation were excluded. Gradients were calculated pre-discharge using transthoracic echocardiography. Effective orifice area calculations were not performed. Data were collected retrospectively from hospital databases and analyzed using SPSS 17. RESULTS: Both groups compared well for 14 variables. Group A had a higher number of redo operations and the patients were younger. Postoperative peak and mean gradients (in mmHg) for the Magna Ease group versus Trifecta group were: 19 mm valves, 33.5 +/- 16 versus 24.7 +/- 10 (p = 0.11) and 17.4 +/- 6.5 versus 12.7 +/- 4.4 (p = 0.05); 21 mm, 27.2 +/- 9.1 versus 21.8 +/- 7.2 (p = 0.001) and 13.8 +/- 4.7 versus 10.7 +/- 3.4 (p = 0.001); 23 mm, 25.6 +/- 7.8 versus 20.1 +/- 7.9 (p = 0.005) and 13 +/- 4 versus 10.1 +/- 4.3 (p = 0.002); 25 mm, 22.3 +/- 7.8 versus 15.6 +/- 5.1 (p = 0.01) and 12.8 +/- 4.1 versus 8 +/- 2.8 (p = 0.02). The overall mortality was 3.4%. The median hospital stay was nine days in both groups (p = 0.13). Mortality (p = 0.5), and incidences of perioperative stroke (p = 0.45), postoperative new-onset atrial fibrillation (p = 0.26) and permanent pacemaker implantation (p = 0.8) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Early postoperative gradients were significantly lower in patients receiving Trifecta valves, although the long-term clinical outcome and durability of the valve will require further evaluation.

The outcomes of triple-valve surgery: eleven years' experience from a single center.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Triple-valve surgery is a challenging and complex procedure with significant risk, even at centers experienced at performing such operations. The study aim was to investigate the early and late outcomes of this surgery, performed at a single center for the past 11 years. METHODS: A total of 45 consecutive patients (19 males, 26 females; mean age 69.42 +/- 12.72 years) underwent triple-valve surgery at the authors' institution between 2000 and 2011. The mean logistic EuroSCORE was 22.46 +/- 12.8%. The most common aortic valve pathology was calcific degeneration (40%), while the mitral valves were mostly rheumatic (31%) or degenerative (26%). The tricuspid valve pathology was functional regurgitation in 64% of patients. The aortic valve procedures were all replacements, while the mitral valves were either repaired (n = 20) or replaced (n = 25). The tricuspid valves were almost exclusively repaired (n = 43). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to highlight predictors of mortality. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was also performed. RESULTS: The operative mortality was 8.9% (n = 4). Survival at one, three, and five years was 91%, 85.5% and 66.4%, respectively. Morbidity was not particularly high: the incidence of all postoperative neurological complications was 13%, that of transient renal impairment was 18%, and pacemaker implantation 8.9%. CONCLUSION: The results of triple-valve surgery were considerably improved compared to historical reports. Early mortality was close to that occurring after less complex procedures, while late survival was comparable to that after single-valve surgery. It is believed that the best results are achieved by centers experienced in valve procedures. Compared to older studies, rheumatic disease was not the most frequent requirement for of triple-valve surgery among the present patients.

Is It Safe to Let Trainees Operate on High Risk Cardiac Surgery Cases?

Increasing complexity in cardiac operations has raised the discussion on trainee autonomy and the number of cases required to achieve competency. This study compares outcomes among cases done by trainees vs consultants for high risk patients. 696 (trainee=158 vs consultant=438) major high risk cardiac operations (Euroscore >10) were reviewed at a single center. Observations were propensity matched to consultant or trainee based on several baseline characteristics. Euroscore was: Trainee; 12.3 ± 1.6 versus Consultant; 12.8 ± 2.2, p=.036. Multivariable analysis did not identify trainee as a risk factor for worse in-hospital mortality (OR; 0.95, CI; 0.4-2.2, p=.914) or composite outcome of length of stay >30 days, deep sternal infection, new hemodialysis, new stroke or transient ischemic attack, in-hospital death or reoperation (OR; 0.64, CI; 0.39-1.03, p=.069). NYHA class, diabetes and emergency/salvage surgery were predictors of worse composite outcome. After propensity matching (130 pairs), there was no difference in reoperation rates (3.1% versus 4.6%, p=.727), inhospital death (5.4% versus 7.7%, p=.607) or composite outcome (20.8% versus 29.2%, p=.152). There was no statistical difference in cross clamp times (Trainee; 74.0 ± 32.7 min vs Consultant; 82.6 ± 51.1, p=.229) and bypass times (Trainee; 116.3 ± 52.8 min versus Consultant 135.3 ± 72.6 min, p=.055). The length of stay was similar (18.2 ± 13.2 days versus 19.9 ± 15.6 days, p=.302). It is possible for trainees to perform high risk cardiac surgery without compromising the quality of patient care.

Long-term outcomes in octogenarians following aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: The aging of the population has resulted in an increasing number of elderly patients undergoing cardiac operations. We reviewed our experience in patients over the age of 80 undergoing primary aortic valve replacement (AVR) with or without CABG. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2008, 345 patients (226 male) ≥80 years underwent primary AVR in our unit. The notes of these patients were retrospectively reviewed and follow-up information was obtained from their general practitioners. They had a mean age of 82.9 ± 2.3 years and a median logistic EuroSCORE of 13.4 (IQR 9.4, 19.1). Isolated AVR was performed in 161 patients (45.5%), and 184 (51.6%) patients underwent combined AVR and CABG. A quality of life questionnaire was sent to all survivors. RESULTS: Hospital mortality occurred in 17 patients (4.9%), which was significantly lower than the mortality predicted by logistic EuroSCORE (16.2%, p < 0.01). Hospital mortality was comparable between patients undergoing isolated AVR and those undergoing additional CABG (4.3% vs. 5.4%, respectively). Actuarial survival at one and five years was 90.1 ± 1.6% and 77.2 ± 2.9%, respectively. There was a 62% response on the questionnaire showing 70% of the patients were NYHA I and 83.7% were satisfied with the operation outcome. CONCLUSIONS: AVR can be undertaken with excellent results in octogenarians and the current risk is significantly lower than what is predicted with conventional risk-scoring systems. Patients with advanced age should not necessarily be excluded from being candidates for AVR.

Outcomes of patients with acute prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic valve endocarditis is burdened by high mortality and morbidity. We reviewed our experience in the management of patients with acute prosthetic aortic valve infection and studied the implications and outcomes associated with surgical treatment and medical therapy. METHODS: Data of 118 consecutive patients admitted during the period 2008-2018 with definite acute prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis, and presenting a surgical indication, were retrieved from the hospital database. Univariate and multivariate analysis were undertaken to study the association of preoperative characteristics with hospital mortality and the probability of undergoing a reoperation. Survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: In the overall population, prosthesis dehiscence was independently associated with the possibility of undergoing surgical reoperation, while presentation with embolic stroke was associated with medical treatment. Hospital mortality was 24%, medical treatment was found to be independently associated with early death. One hundred (85%) patients underwent redo procedures; aortic valve replacement was performed in 53 and full root replacement in 47. Postoperative hospital mortality was 17%. Survival at 1-, 5-, and 8-years was 78%, 74%, and 66%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation and recurrent endocarditis was 95% at 8-year follow-up.Hospital mortality in patients who did not receive a redo operation was 61% with a survival rate of 17% at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical mortality after reoperation for prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis is still high but mid-term outcomes are satisfactory. Failure to undertake surgery when indicated is an independent risk factor for early death.

Premature Structural Failure of Trifecta Bioprosthesis in Midterm Follow-up: A Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: A cluster of aortic bioprosthetic valve failures, most of which were Trifecta bioprostheses, was observed in Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom. This study was performed to assess whether the cluster represents a significant failure of this valve model or whether there is a selection bias that can explain the failure of these valves. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated all bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement operations performed between 2011 and 2016 inclusive in our center. The study compared the performance of the Trifecta valve (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) with that of Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA), Perimount Magna Ease, and Mitroflow (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) bioprostheses. In addition, the study analyzed patient-related and valve-related risk factors for early failure in the failed valves. RESULTS: A total of 2807 bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements were performed. Of these, 836 were Trifecta valves, 1031 were Perimount, 449 were Perimount Magna Ease, and 351 were Mitroflow valves. A total of 24 Trifecta valves had premature structural failure, a number significantly higher than seen with Perimount or Perimount Magna Ease (no failure, P < .001 and P < .005, respectively) valves and the Mitroflow valve (1 failure, P < .05). There was no difference in the incidence of endocarditis or death. At the time of valve failure, 17 (71%) of the failed Trifecta valves had moderate or severe regurgitation, and the average peak gradient was 61 ± 29 mm Hg. The median failed prosthetic size was 23 mm. One failed valve had severe patient-prosthesis mismatch. The mean time to failure was 4.5 ± 1.7 years. CONCLUSIONS: The Trifecta bioprosthesis has an increased incidence of early structural valve failure, which is significantly higher than that of Perimount, Perimount Magna Ease, or Mitroflow. No patient-related or valve-related cause for the failure could be identified.

Aortic root replacement using a biovalsalva prosthesis in comparison to a "handsewn" composite bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND: The Biovalsalva aortic root prosthesis incorporates an Elan porcine stentless biological aortic valve suspended within a triple-layered vascular conduit with preformed aortic sinuses of Valsalva. This study compared implantation of the Biovalsalva prosthesis with a "handsewn" composite bioprosthetic graft (CE Perimount bovine bioprosthesis anastomosed to a gelatin-impregnated gelweave Dacron graft). METHODS: Between December 2004 and January 2009, 39 patients underwent elective or urgent aortic root replacement (modified Bentall procedure with coronary button reimplantation) using a Biovalsalva (n = 21) or a handsewn bioprosthesis (n = 18) for aortic root dilatation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the preoperative variables between the two study groups including age (70.7 +/- 1.7 vs. 67.6 +/- 2.9 years, p > 0.05). There was no in-hospital mortality. Three patients in each group underwent concomitant aortic hemi-arch replacement. Patients who underwent Biovalsalva implantation had a reduced need for transfusion of blood (1.25 +/- 0.32 vs. 3.17 +/- 0.71 units, p < 0.05) and fresh frozen plasma (2.78 +/- 0.39 vs. 1.85 +/- 0.31, p < 0.05), and reduced mediastinal blood loss (416 +/- 52 vs. 583 +/- 74 mL, p < 0.05) compared to those with a handsewn bioprosthesis. Cardiopulmonary bypass time (141 +/- 6 vs. 170 +/- 17 minutes, p = NS) and aortic cross-clamp time (113 +/- 6 vs. 115 +/- 7 minutes, p = NS) were similar. Postoperative echocardiography demonstrated excellent hemodynamic function of the Biovalsalva prosthesis (mean size 25.1 +/- 0.4 mm valved conduit) with a peak pressure gradient of 26.2 +/- 1.9 mmHg and no or trivial valvular regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: The Biovalsalva prosthesis should be considered for patients requiring a biological aortic root replacement. It offers an "off-the-shelf" preassembled composite biological valve conduit with excellent hemostatic and hemodynamic properties.

Is Resident Training Safe in Cardiac Surgery?

BACKGROUND: There exists a knowledge gap regarding the safety of training in cardiac surgery. The purpose of this analysis was to establish the safety of resident training in cardiac surgery and compare the results of the trainee cases to those performed by consultants. METHODS: In all, 5894 (trainee, 3343; consultant, 2551) major cardiac operations (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation less than 10) from 2013 to 2018 were reviewed. Multivariate analysis was performed for inhospital mortality and composite outcome of length of stay longer than 30 days, deep sternal infection, new hemodialysis, new stroke or transient ischemic attack, inhospital death, or reoperation. Observations were propensity matched to consultant or trainee with the 16 covariates. RESULTS: Trainees performed 56.7% of cases. Multivariate analysis identified renal disease (odds ratio [OR] 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 6.7; P < .02), peripheral vascular disease (OR 4.62; 95% CI, 1.82 to 11.71; P < .01), and emergency/salvage procedure (OR 7.23; 95% CI, 2.00 to 26.11; P < .01) as predictors of inhospital mortality. Emergency/salvage procedure was the only predictor of worse composite outcomes (OR 2.65; 95% CI, 1.54 to 4.55; P < .001). Trainee cases had similar inhospital mortality and composite outcomes. After propensity matching (1842 observations), bypass time and cross-clamp time were significantly longer for trainees for isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery and aortic valve replacement. There was no difference between deep sternal infection, new hemodialysis, new stroke/transient ischemic attack, inhospital death, or reoperation. Overall composite outcome differed between groups (trainee 9% vs consultant 16.6%, P = .001) owing to difference in the length of stay longer than 30 days (trainee 4.2% vs consultant 9.9%, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Resident training is safe in cardiac surgery without compromising the quality of patient care.

Age-related presentation of acute type A aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the clinical and anatomic presentations of acute type A aortic dissection according to patient age. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 235 consecutive patients who underwent acute type A dissection repair between January 2000 and December 2014. The influence of age on anatomical and clinical presentation, surgical management in the entire cohort and also after exclusion of patients with known connective tissue disorders was assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Males presented with type A acute aortic dissection at a younger age than females. Acute onset with signs of myocardial ischemia, connective tissue disorders, or bicuspid aortic valve characterized the younger population. Extension to the coronary sinus(es) ( p = 0.0003), descending thoracic aorta ( p = 0.016), and abdominal aorta ( p = 0.029), and an intimal tear at the level of the aortic root ( p = 0.0017) correlated inversely with patient age. Similar findings were obtained after exclusion of patients with connective tissue disorders or a bicuspid aortic valve. CONCLUSIONS: More frequent proximal and distal progression of the dissection flap occurs in younger patients with acute type A aortic dissection. Older age is associated with a lower probability of an intimal tear at the level of the sinus of Valsalva. These findings, associated with prognostic implications, account for the choice of more radical proximal procedures for repair of aortic dissection in younger patients.

Knife in the superior mediastinum: Amazing escape.

This text describe through images, how a knife is retrieved from the superior mediastinum.

Mitral valve replacement in severely calcified mitral valve annulus: a 10-year experience.

OBJECTIVES: Severe calcification in the mitral valve annulus is a challenging problem during mitral valve surgery. We describe our experience with mitral valve replacement in severely calcified mitral valve without decalcification of the annulus. METHODS: Between April 2001 and July 2011, 61 patients underwent mitral valve replacement with severe mitral annulus calcification without decalcification of the annulus. This retrospective study was performed to assess the surgical and the long-term postoperative outcomes in this group. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 75.2 ± 9.2 years. Twenty-four patients (53%) were in New York Heart Association Class III/IV. Twenty-six patients (58%) had good left ventricular function. Mean logistic EuroSCORE was 8.75. Isolated mitral valve replacement was performed in 12 patients (27%). Coronary artery bypass grafting was done in 13 patients (29%). In-hospital mortality was 4.9% (3 patients). Postoperative morbidity included re-exploration for bleeding in 3 patients (7%) and transient renal impairment in 10 patients (22%). Three patients required intra-aortic balloon pump (7%) for low cardiac output syndrome. Seven patients (16%) required permanent pacemaker, and 1 patient (2%) had thromboembolic event. The 1-year survival was 93.3%, and the 5-year survival was 78.8%. The mean echocardiography follow-up was 40 months. There was no paravalvular leak detected in any patient in the long-term follow-up. None of the patients had valve-related reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Mitral valve replacement without annular decalcification in severely calcified mitral valve annulus is a safe and an effective approach and has good long-term outcome.