Is Single LIMA-LAD Bypass Appropriate for OPCAB Training?

BACKGROUND: A significant impact of surgeons' experience on outcomes of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) has been recognized through previous large-scale studies. However, a safe, effective, and concrete OPCAB training was yet to be identified. We evaluate a safety of our OPCAB training model with single left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending artery (LAD) as a reasonable first step. METHODS: Between January 2010 and June 2019, 180 patients with an isolated single coronary bypass of the LAD using LIMA as an in situ graft via median sternotomy fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Coronary arterial bypass under cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), utilizing other graft material, minimal invasive direct coronary arterial bypass through left-sided thoracotomy, and multiple diseased coronary artery disease were excluded. The primary outcome is an early postoperative outcome (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCEs]: myocardial infarction, coronary re-revascularization, stroke, acute renal failure, and all causes of death) between residents in training under supervision (group 1: n = 63) and experienced surgeons (group 2: n = 117). Trainees were already experienced in on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. RESULTS: Preoperative variables were comparable. There was no significant difference in the rate of MACCEs between the two groups including hospital mortality (p = 1.000), perioperative myocardial infarction (p = 0.246), stroke (p = 0.655), and acute renal failure (p = 0.175). CONCLUSION: The early postoperative outcome of off-pump LIMA to the LAD performed by trainees was comparable to those by experienced surgeons. Single LIMA-LAD was safely performed by trainees under supervision without CPB. In order to master OPCAB technique, single LAD bypass might be a reasonable first step to get into touch with the technical characteristics of this special procedure.

Impact of Surgeon Experience and Centre Volume on Outcome After Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Results From the European Multicenter Study on Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (E-CABG) Registry.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of surgeon experience and centre volume on early operative outcomes in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery. METHOD: Of 7,352 patients in the European Multicenter Study on Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (E-CABG) registry, 1,549 underwent OPCAB and were included in the present analysis. Using adjusted regression analysis, we compared major early adverse events after procedures performed by experienced OPCAB surgeons (i.e., ≥20 cases per year; n=1,201) to those performed by non-OPCAB surgeons (n=348). Furthermore, the same end points were compared between procedures performed by OPCAB surgeons in high OPCAB volume centres (off-pump technique used in >50% of cases; n=894) and low OPCAB volume centres (n=307). RESULTS: In the experienced OPCAB surgeon group, we observed shorter procedure times (ß -43.858, 95% confidence interval [CI] -53.322 to -34.393; p<0.001), a lower rate of conversion to cardiopulmonary bypass (odds ratio [OR] 0.284, 95% CI 0.147-0.551; p<0.001), a lower rate of prolonged inotrope or vasoconstrictor use (OR 0.492, 95% CI 0.371-0.653; p<0.001), a lower rate of early postprocedural percutaneous coronary interventions (OR 0.335, 95% CI 0.169-0.663; p=0.002), and lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.423, 95% CI 0.194-0.924; p=0.031). In high OPCAB volume centres, we found a lower rate of prolonged inotrope use (OR 0.584, 95% CI 0.419-0.814; p=0.002), a lower rate of postprocedural acute kidney injury (OR 0.382, 95% CI 0.198-0.738; p=0.004), shorter duration of intensive care unit (ß -1.752, 95% CI -2.240 to -1.264; p<0.001) and hospital (ß -1.967; 95% CI -2.717 to -1.216; p<0.001) stays, and lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.316, 95% CI 0.114-0.881; p=0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon experience and centre volume may play an important role on the early outcomes after OPCAB surgery.

Transcutaneous lead implantation connected to an externalized pacemaker in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillator/pacemaker infection and pacemaker dependency.

AIMS: Systemic cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a serious complication, especially in patients with pacemaker (PM) dependency. In those patients after infectious device removal temporary pacing is necessary, to obtain adequate haemodynamics. In this study, a new therapy option with temporary pacing by ipsilateral implantation of a new active-fixation right ventricular (RV)-lead was evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between September 2009 and November 2011, infectious lead removal was performed in 17 patients with systemic CIED infection. Temporary pacing was achieved by simultaneous implantation of a new active-fixation RV-lead, which then was connected extracorporally to the old CIED device. Antibiotic therapy was initiated. When laboratory infection parameters were in normal range and blood culture samples showed negative results, new CIED was implanted on contralateral side and temporary RV-lead was removed. Mean patients' age was 71.3 ± 9.1 years. Mean C-reactive protein values were 79.3 mg/dL, and mean leucocytes counts were 12.6 × 10(3). After lead extraction, temporary pacing was necessary in all patients due to severe bradycardia. Mean duration of temporary pacing was 12.7 (6-24) days. No major procedure-related peri- or post-operative adverse events occurred. Mean time of hospitalization was 20.8 (10-48) days. Mean follow-up time was 21.1 months (12-36), showing survival rate of 100% and freedom from reinfection in all patients. CONCLUSION: Ipsilateral implantation of a temporary active-fixation RV-lead connected to an externalized PM and pursued antibiotic therapy seems to be a good option for patients with CIED infection and PM dependency, showing no temporary pacing-related complications and no reinfection after mean follow-up time of 21.1 months.

Neurological Complications in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) without cardiopulmonary bypass and minimal or no aortic manipulation may be associated with a lower risk of neurological complications. We investigated this issue in patients with a high risk of perioperative stroke. METHODS: Data on 7352 patients who underwent isolated CABG from January 2015 to May 2017 were included in the multicenter study E-CABG (European Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting) registry. Of these, 684 patients had an increased risk of neurological complications, ie, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, severe carotid artery stenosis or occlusion, or previous carotid artery intervention. In this subgroup, we analyzed the rates of the combined primary endpoint comprising any postoperative stroke or transient ischemic attack. A comparative analysis between CABG with and without aortic cross-clamping was performed. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was more often reached when aortic cross-clamping was used (propensity score matching, without vs with aortic cross-clamp: 0.9% vs 7.2%; P = .016). In comparison with all other revascularization techniques, off-pump CABG with avoidance of aortic manipulation was associated with the lowest rate of neurological complications (0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with increased risk of perioperative stroke, aortic manipulation including the use of cardiopulmonary bypass or partial clamping for central anastomoses is associated with higher rates of postoperative neurological complications. These patients may benefit from off-pump surgery without aortic manipulation if complete revascularization can be ensured.

Establishment of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in minimally invasive heart valve surgery.

Protocols for "Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)" are on the rise in different surgical disciplines and represent one of the most important recent advancements in perioperative medical care. In cardiac surgery, only few ERAS protocols have been described in the past. At University Heart Center Hamburg, Germany, we invented an ERAS protocol for patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery. In this retrospective single center study, we aimed to describe the implementation of our ERAS program and to evaluate the results of the first 50 consecutive patients. Our ERAS protocol was developed according to a modified Kern cycle by an expert group, literature search, protocol creation and pilot implementation in the clinical practice. Data of the first 50 consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery were analysed retrospectively. The key features of our multidisciplinary ERAS protocol are physiotherapeutic prehabilitation, minimally invasive valve surgery techniques, modified cardiopulmonary bypass management, fast-track anaesthesia with on- table extubation and early mobilisation. A total of 50 consecutive patients (mean age of 51.9±11.9 years, mean STS score of 0.6±0.3) underwent minimally-invasive mitral or aortic valve surgery. The adherence to the ERAS protocol was high and neither protocol related complications nor in-hospital mortality occurred. 12% of the patients developed postoperative atrial fibrillation, postoperative delirium emerged in two patients and reintubation was required in one patient. Intensive care unit stay was 14.0±7.4 hours and total hospital stay 6.2±2.9 days. Our ERAS protocol is feasible and safe in minimally-invasive cardiac surgery setting and has a clear potential to improve patients outcome.

Switching to Impella 5.0 decreases need for transfusion in patients undergoing temporary mechanical circulatory support.

PURPOSE: Various options of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) exist for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, however, all forms of tMCS carry a risk of complications. The aim of this study was to compare bleeding complications and thromboembolic events under extracorporeal life support + Impella 2.5/CP (ECMELLA) and isolated Impella 5.0 therapy in the same patient cohort. MATERIAL: We retrospectively analyzed data of patients who underwent ECMELLA implantation and subsequent Impella 5.0 therapy. Implantation strategy and anticoagulation protocol were comparable in both groups. RESULTS: We included 15 patients (mean age 57.2 years; 80% of male patients) who were weaned from ECMELLA undergoing subsequent Impella 5.0 implantation. Mean duration of ECMELLA and Impella 5.0 therapy (10.5 vs. 11.2 days) did not differ significantly (p = .731). The average number of transfused packed red blood cells (PRBC) and thrombocyte concentrates (TC) was significantly decreased during Impella 5.0 treatment (PRBC: 30.3 vs 12.3, p = .001; TC: 5.9 vs 2.2, p = .045). Additionally, the transfusion rates per day were significantly reduced under Impella 5.0 support. CONCLUSIONS: The need for transfusions is significantly lower in the phase of Impella 5.0 therapy compared to the initial phase on ECMELLA. Therefore, we recommend replacing ECMELLA by an Impella 5.0 device early, if possible.

Initial experience of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead extraction with the new GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheaths.

OBJECTIVES: Laser lead extraction is a challenging procedure, especially in patients with old or multiple pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads. The mechanical force is a leading cause of complications during the extraction procedure. Use of new laser sheaths, which deliver a rate of 80 pulses per second, may probably reduce intraoperative adverse events by reduction of extraction force. METHODS: Between January 2012 and April 2013, 76 PM and ICD leads were treated in 38 patients using GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheaths. Indications for lead removals were pocket infection (42.1%), septicaemia or endocarditis (23.7%), lead dysfunction (31.6%) and upgrade from PM to ICD (2.6%). Data on procedural success rates, intra- and postoperative outcomes, as well as 30-day mortality were collected into a database and analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 62.0 ± 17.7 years (range 18-83), and 73.7% were male. The mean time from initial lead implantation was 96.0 ± 58.3 months (range 24-288). Thirty-seven (48.7%) PM and 39 (51.3%) ICD leads had to be extracted. The mean procedural time was 68.3 ± 27.3 min (range 35-115). Seventy-two of 76 leads (94.8%) were completely removed, partial removal was achieved in 2 (2.6%) leads and a failure of extraction occurred in 2 (2.6%) leads. The overall complication rate was 5.2%, including one major (superior vena cava perforation) (2.6%) and one minor (pocket haematoma) (2.6%) complication. No death occurred during the 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The GlideLight 80 Hz laser sheath allows safe and effective removal of chronically implanted PM and ICD leads, combining high procedural success with low complication rates.