Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Right Ventricular Strain in Women and Men Before and After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Objective: Adverse events following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are more common in women than in men, but the impact of gender differences on right ventricular (RV) failure is not well defined. Therefore, we calculated RV strain before and after LVAD implantation in matched groups of men and women to determine if gender differences in RV failure after LVAD might account for the gender differences in overall outcomes. Methods: RV free wall longitudinal strain (FWS) and fractional area change were calculated preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively using speckle-tracking echocardiography analysis. A total of 172 patients (86 women, 86 men) were then propensity score matched (1:1) for comparison. Results: Although women had higher preoperative CHA2DS2-VASc scores and more frequent moderate mitral regurgitation than men (P = 0.018), the preoperative hemodynamic parameters were similar. Preoperative RV-FWS was -6.7% in women and -6.0% in men (P = 0.65). Postoperatively, women had more progression to severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) than men (15% vs 7%, P = 0.06). At 3 months the RV-FWS was -7.7% in women and -7.0% in men (P = 0.59). Postoperative TR was moderate-severe in 20% of women and in 9% of men (P = 0.001). Women had a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism, cardiac arrhythmias, and bleeding compared with men. Women also had higher mortality rates at discharge and 30 days after surgery, but the survival rates at 5 years were similar. Conclusions: RV strain measurements track standard hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters and confirm that gender differences in outcomes following LVAD implantation are not related to gender differences in RV failure rates.

Biatrial or Left Atrial Lesion Set for Ablation During Mitral Surgery: Risks and Benefits.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists when performing surgical atrial fibrillation ablation whether there is an increase in postoperative complications using biatrial (BA) lesions compared with only left atrial (LA) lesions, and some studies indicate similar efficacy. This study compares the clinical outcomes of BA and LA ablation lesions in mitral valve surgery patients. METHODS: From 2004 through 2014, 2,137 patients had mitral valve surgery with or without other surgeries in a single center. Of those, 836 (39%) had preoperative atrial fibrillation, and of those, 724 (86%) underwent atrial fibrillation ablation surgery; 257 patients had BA lesion sets and 359 had LA lesion sets. Propensity score matching of BA and LA patients was performed. RESULTS: Baseline differences included more postoperative complications in the BA group, specifically, permanent pacemaker placement (13% versus 7%; p = 0.006). Freedom from atrial fibrillation off antiarrhythmic drugs (72% BA versus 75% LA; p = 0.50), postoperative ablation (7% BA versus 5% LA; p = 0.20), stroke (0.11 versus 0.11 per 10 person-years; p = 0.91), and survival were similar between the groups. After matching, patients in the LA group had a higher freedom from postoperative ablation (p = 0.015), but no difference in freedom from atrial fibrillation off antiarrhythmic drugs (79% BA versus 69% LA; p = 0.09), and no difference in permanent pacemaker placement (10% versus 12%; p = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing mitral surgery with LA or BA ablation had similar outcomes, survival, and complications. Limiting lesions to the LA is an effective alternative to BA ablation for patients undergoing ablation with concomitant mitral valve surgery.

The addition of hemiarch replacement to aortic root surgery does not affect safety.

OBJECTIVES: A hemiarch reconstruction, using deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, is the conventional approach for proximal aortic arch reconstruction, but it carries risks of neurologic events and coagulopathy. The addition of a hemiarch reconstruction to an aortic root replacement may prevent future aortic arch pathology. Outcomes of this approach at a tertiary care institution were examined to determine whether the addition of a hemiarch reconstruction to an aortic root replacement conferred any additional risk. METHODS: A total of 384 patients underwent an aortic root replacement between April 2004 and June 2012. Of them, 177 (46%) had hemiarch replacement. Propensity score matching yielded 133 pairs of patients receiving hemiarch and non-hemiarch. RESULTS: Sinus segment diameter was similar between groups; ascending aortic diameter was greater in the hemiarch group (median 50 vs 44 mm; P < .001). The hemiarch group had longer perfusion (median 186 vs 120.5 minutes; P < .001) and crossclamp times (median 140 vs 104 minutes; P < .001); median circulatory arrest was 13 minutes. There was no difference, hemiarch versus no hemiarch, in 30-day mortality (3.0% vs 1.5%; P = .41), stroke (2.3% vs 4.5%; P = .31), reoperation for bleeding (11% vs 10%; P = .84), or overall survival (5-year 88.0% [95% confidence interval, 81.9-94.0] vs 91.4% [95% confidence interval, 85.8-96.9], P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: In this series, aortic root replacement ± hemiarch reconstruction had low mortality. Addition of hemiarch replacement extended perfusion times but not at the expense of safety. Hemiarch reconstruction should be performed when the aortic root aneurysm extends into the distal ascending aorta.