The risk of reoperative cardiac surgery in radiation-induced valvular disease.

OBJECTIVE: Mediastinal radiation therapy (MRT) increases the risk for adverse outcomes after cardiac surgery and is not incorporated in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk algorithm. We aimed to quantify the surgical risk conferred by MRT in patients undergoing primary and reoperative valvular operations. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 261 consecutive patients with prior MRT who underwent valvular operations between January 2002 and May 2015. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared for STS predicted risk of mortality, surgery type, gender, year of surgery, and age-matched patients stratified by reoperative status. RESULTS: Mean age was 62.6 ± 12.1 years and 174 (67%) were women. The majority had received MRT for Hodgkin lymphoma (48.2%) and breast cancer (36%). Overall, 214 (82%) were primary and 47 (18%) were reoperative procedures. Reoperation carried a higher operative mortality than primary cases (17% vs 3.7%; P = .003). Compared with the 836 nonradiated matches, operative mortality and observed-to-expected STS mortality ratios were higher in primary (3.8% [1.4] vs 0.8% [0.32]; P = .004) and reoperative (17% [3.35] vs 2.3% [0.45]; P = .001) patients with prior MRT. Cox proportional hazard modeling revealed that in patients with previous MRT, primary (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-2.91) and reoperative status (hazard ratio, 3.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-5.21) adversely affected long-term survival compared with nonradiated matches. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for radiation-induced valvular heart disease has a higher operative mortality than predicted by STS predicted risk of mortality. Reoperations are associated with increased morbidity and mortality compared with primary cases. Careful patient selection is paramount and expanded indications for transcatheter therapies should be considered, especially in reoperative patients.

Surgical outcomes of isolated tricuspid valve procedures: repair versus replacement.

BACKGROUND: Isolated tricuspid valve (ITV) operations are infrequent and the decision to operate is controversial. We report a series of ITV operations to outline the current disease status requiring this uncommon procedure with an emphasis on the results of tricuspid valve repair (TVr) versus replacement (TVR). METHODS: Using our prospective cardiac surgery database, 57 patients who underwent ITV operations between 01/02-03/14 were identified. Median follow up time was 3.5 years [interquartile range (IQR), 0.8-6.7 years]. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients underwent ITV surgery with a mean age of 54.4±14.9 yrs and 61% were women. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients who underwent TVr (n=18) or TVR (n=39). The etiologies of TV dysfunction were: ITV endocarditis 14/57 (25%), persistent TV regurgitation after left-sided valve surgery in 12/57 (21%), traumatic biopsies and iatrogenic injury from pacing leads in 11/57 (19%), orthotopic heart transplant 9/57 (16%), carcinoid syndrome 3/57 (5%), congenital 2/57 (5%) and idiopathic 5/57 (9%). Overall, 32/57 (56%) patients had prior heart surgery; of which 10/32 (31%) were TV procedures. Bioprosthetic prostheses were used in 34/39 (87%) patients. Of those who had repair, 11/18 (61%) had ring annuloplasty, 3/18 (17%) bicuspidization, and 3/18 (17%) De Vega annuloplasty and one had vegetectomy. Operative mortality was 5.1% (n=2) and 16.7% (n=3) for TVR and TVr groups, respectively (P=0.32), with an overall mortality rate of 8.6%. Postoperative complications included new onset renal failure in 6/39 (15%) of TVr and 2/18 (11%) of TVR (P=0.71) and there were no strokes. Overall survival rates and degree of residual RV dysfunction were similar for the two groups (both P=0.3). Five-year survival was 77% and 84% for TVr and TVR respectively (P=0.52). There was no difference in rates of recurrent tricuspid regurgitation for TVr and TVR (35.7% vs. 23.5%, respectively, P=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: ITV surgery is associated with improved but still relatively high operative mortality. Mid-term outcomes for TVr and TVR are similar with regards to postoperative complications, survival, and freedom from recurrent tricuspid regurgitation.

Posterior suture annuloplasty for functional tricuspid regurgitation.

Functional tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is primarily caused by enlargement of the tricuspid annulus due to right ventricular dilation, frequently secondary to left sided valvular disease. Early techniques for the treatment of functional TR were introduced by Jerome Kay in 1965 and Norberto DeVega in 1972. Modified suture annuloplasty is a modification of DeVega's semicircular purse string technique, however, it is based on Kay's principle of obliteration of the posterior segment of the annulus only. While ring annuloplasty is the procedure of choice for severe functional TR, posterior suture annuloplasty is a technically simpler option for patients with moderate functional TR.

Should Moderate-to-Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation be Repaired During Reoperative Left-Sided Valve Procedures?

The risks vs benefits of tricuspid valve (TV) surgery in reoperative patients requiring left-sided valve surgery and moderate-to-severe tricuspid regurgitation is unclear. We compared patients with and without concomitant TV surgery. A total of 200 patients with moderate-to-severe TV regurgitation had reoperative left-sided valve procedures from January 2002 to April 2014; 75 with TV intervention (TVI) and 125 with no tricuspid intervention (TVN). Propensity-matched cohorts of 60 TVI and 60 TVN patients were compared. Outcomes included New York Heart Association class, TV regurgitation and survival. TVI patients were younger (66 ± 15 vs 72 ± 13 years, P < 0.001), had more cardiogenic shock (6 of 75, vs 0 of 125, P < 0.001) and mitral valve surgery (60 of 75 vs 69 of 125, P < 0.001). Propensity matching yielded 60 pairs of TVI cases and TVN controls. Matched groups were comparable in age (TVI = 67 ± 13 vs TVN 68 ± 14 years, P = 0.67), cardiogenic shock (2 vs 0, P = 0.50), and mitral valve surgery (15 each, P = 1.0). Operative mortality was 2 of 60 in TVI vs 10 of 60 TVN (P = 0.27). Median follow-up was 4.4 years. Follow-up rates of New York Heart Association class III-IV were similar (12 of 60 for TVI vs 16 of 60 TVN, P = 0.52). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated improved event-free survival for TVI patients (6 years, 95% CI: 4.8-7.2 years vs 8 years, 95% CI: 6.7-9.3 years for TVN, P = 0.030). There was a trend towards increased TR at follow-up in patients with valve repair alone vs annuloplasty (P = 0.15). TV surgery was performed more often in higher-risk patients. Matched case-control analyses showed TVI was associated with improved midterm outcomes. Our data suggest that annuloplasty was preferable to TV repair alone.

Reoperative Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Replacement for Degenerated Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves.

BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic aortic valve use has increased steadily according to The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database analyses. One of the momentums toward this trend is the future utilization of transcatheter valve-in-valve (TViV) techniques when bioprosthetic valves fail. We compared the results of reoperative TViV to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for degenerated bioprosthetic valves. METHODS: From January 2002 to January 2015, we identified 91 patients with degenerated bioprosthetic valves who underwent isolated AVR (SAVR n = 69, TViV n = 22). Patients with prior homografts or active endocarditis were excluded. The STS risk score was used to create 22 matched pairs of SAVR and TViV for comparison. RESULTS: Before matching, mean STS risk scores were 4.36 ± 3.1 and 7.54 ± 3.0 for SAVR and TViV, respectively (p = 0.001), but were 7.70 ± 3.4 and 7.54 ± 3.0, respectively (p = 0.360), after matching. Mean age was 74.5 ± 10.4 years for SAVR and 75.0 ± 9.6 years for TViV (p = 0.749). Operative mortality was 4.3% (1 of 22) in the SAVR group and zero for TViV (p = 1.00). Mean postoperative gradient was 13.5 ± 13.2 mm Hg for SAVR and 12.4 ± 6.2 mm Hg for TViV (p = 0.584). There was no coronary obstruction in either group, but 22% of TViV (5 of 22) had mild paravalvular leaks versus none in the SAVR group (p = 0.048). Postoperative stroke rate was 9% (2 of 22) for SAVR and zero for TViV (p = 0.488). The TViV group had shorter median length of stay (5 versus 11 days, p = 0.001). Actuarial survival at 3 years was 76.3% (95% confidence interval: 58.1 to 94.5) versus 78.7 (95% confidence interval: 56.2 to 100) for SAVR and TViV, respectively (p = 0.410). CONCLUSIONS: For degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves, TViV has similar operative mortality, strokes rates, and survival as SAVR in this high-risk cohort. Therefore, TViV is a viable alternative to SAVR, although studies using registry data are needed to establish noninferiority.

Surgical outcomes of infective endocarditis among intravenous drug users.

BACKGROUND: With increasing prevalence of injected drug use in the United States, a growing number of intravenous drug users (IVDUs) are at risk for infective endocarditis (IE) that may require surgical intervention; however, few data exist about clinical outcomes of these individuals. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for active IE between 2002 and 2014 pooled from 2 prospective institutional databases. Death and valve-related events, including reinfection or heart valve reoperation, thromboembolism, and anticoagulation-related hemorrhage were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 436 patients identified, 78 (17.9%) were current IVDUs. The proportion of IVDUs increased from 14.8% in 2002 to 2004 to 26.1% in 2012 to 2014. IVDUs were younger (aged 35.9 ± 9.9 years vs 59.3 ± 14.1 years) and had fewer cardiovascular risk factors than non-IVDUs. During follow-up (median, 29.4 months; quartile 1-3, 4.7-72.6 months), adverse events among all patients included death in 92, reinfection in 42, valve-reoperation in 35, thromboembolism in 17, and hemorrhage in 16. Operative mortality was lower among IVDUs (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-0.71), but overall mortality was not significantly different (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.44-1.37). When baseline profiles were adjusted by propensity score, IVDUs had higher risk of valve-related complications (HR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.95-7.49; P < .001) principally attributable to higher rates of reinfection (HR, 6.20; 95% CI, 2.56-15.00; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of IVDUs among surgically treated IE patients is increasing. Although IVDUs have lower operative risk, long-term outcomes are compromised by reinfection.

Aortic Regurgitation With Markedly Reduced Left Ventricular Function Is Not a Contraindication for Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The current study assesses outcomes and risk factors for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic regurgitation (AR) in the setting of markedly reduced left ventricular (LV) function compared with moderately reduced LV function and preserved LV function. METHODS: Between January 2002 and June 2013, 485 consecutive patients underwent AVR for severe AR. Overall, 37 of 485 patients (8%) had an LV ejection fraction (EF) less than or equal to 35% (low EF) with median of 30%; 141 of 485 patients (27%) had an LVEF of 36% to 50% (moderate) with median of 45%, and 307 of 485 patients (65%) had an LVEF greater than 50% (preserved) with median of 60%. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were similar across groups, except patients with low EF were older (67.4 ± 12.1 years versus moderate [58.6 ± 15.0 years], p = 0.003 versus preserved [56.9 ± 14.3 years], p = 0.001), more often had reoperations (35.1% versus preserved 19.9%, p = 0.054), and had more concomitant coronary artery bypass grafts (37.6% versus preserved 14.3%, p = 0.001). Operative mortality for the entire cohort was 1.9% (9 or 485) and was similar across groups, 0% in the low EF group, 2.1% (3 of 141) in the moderate group, and 2.0% (6 of 307) in the preserved group (all p > 0.5). Cox proportional hazard modeling indicated that age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.061, p ≤ 0.001), preoperative creatinine (HR 1.478, p ≤ 0.014), history of atrial fibrillation (HR 1.920, p = 0.095), and New York Heart Association class III/IV (HR 2.127, p = 0.004) predicted survival. At median follow-up of 26 months, in the low EF group, the mean LVEF at follow-up was 49.5% ± 10.2% versus baseline 30% ± 4.6% (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this series, patients with markedly reduced LV function (LVEF ≤35%) had similar postoperative outcomes and survival as patients with moderate LV dysfunction or preserved LV function.

Are homografts superior to conventional prosthetic valves in the setting of infective endocarditis involving the aortic valve?

BACKGROUND: Surgical dogma suggests that homografts should be used preferentially, compared with conventional xenograft or mechanical prostheses, in the setting of infective endocarditis (IE), because they have greater resistance to infection. However, comparative data that support this notion are limited. METHODS: From the prospective databases of 2 tertiary academic centers, we identified 304 consecutive adult patients (age ≥17 years) who underwent surgery for active IE involving the aortic valve (AV), in the period 2002 to 2014. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated using propensity scores and inverse-probability weighting to adjust for selection bias. RESULTS: Homografts, and xenograft and mechanical prostheses, were used in 86 (28.3%), 139 (45.7%), and 79 (26.0%) patients, respectively. Homografts were more often used in the setting of prosthetic valve endocarditis (58.1% vs 28.8%, P = .002) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus (25.6% vs 12.1%, P = .002), compared with conventional prostheses. Early mortality occurred in 17 (19.8%) in the homograft group, and 20 (9.2%) in the conventional group (P = .019). During follow-up (median: 29.4 months; interquartile-range: 4.7-72.6 months), 60 (19.7%) patients died, and 23 (7.7%) experienced reinfection, with no significant differences in survival (P = .23) or freedom from reinfection rates (P = .65) according to the types of prostheses implanted. After adjustments for baseline characteristics, using propensity-score analyses, use of a homograft did not significantly affect early death (odds ratio 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-3.40, P = .23), overall death (hazard ratio 1.10; 95% CI, 0.62-1.94, P = .75), or reinfection (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI, 0.49-2.18, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: No significant benefit to use of homografts was demonstrable with regard to resistance to reinfection in the setting of IE. The choice among prosthetic options should be based on technical and patient-specific factors. Lack of availability of homografts should not impede appropriate surgical intervention.

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Consensus Guidelines: Reasons and purpose.

The time interval for the doubling of medical knowledge continues to decline. Physicians, patients, administrators, government officials, and payors are struggling to keep up to date with the waves of new information and to integrate the knowledge into new patient treatment protocols, processes, and metrics. Guidelines, Consensus Guidelines, and Consensus Statements, moderated by seasoned content experts, offer one method to rapidly distribute new information in a timely manner and also guide minimal standards of treatment of clinical care pathways as they are developed as part of bundled care programs. These proposed Consensus Guidelines advance The American Association for Thoracic Surgery's mission of leading in cardiothoracic health care, education, innovation, and modeling excellence.

Sutureless Aortic Valves: Combining the Best or the Worst?

Aortic valve replacement is a life saving intervention. Significant progress has been made toward reducing surgical trauma through minimally invasive surgery and transcatheter techniques. Each of these approaches has its advantages and limitations. Sutureless aortic valves have been proposed to overcome these limitations and have been in use in Europe. It is however less than clear whether these valves will prove advantageous and whether they will have a role in the future. We review the published literature for sutureless aortic valves and their performance against standard and transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

Nineteen-Millimeter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves Are Safe and Effective for Elderly Patients With Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Replacing a stenotic aortic valve with 19-mm bioprostheses remains controversial owing to potential patient-prosthesis mismatch concerns. We report a single-center 10 year experience with 19-mm bioprosthetic valves implanted in elderly patients. We hypothesized patients would have acceptable in-hospital and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Between January 2002 and December 2011, 257 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with a 19-mm prosthesis, of whom 182 had available follow-up echocardiographic studies. Mean age was 77.4 ± 8.4 years, and 10 of 257 (4%) were male. Outcomes of interest included early and late mortality, peak and mean aortic valve gradients, and left ventricular mass regression. RESULTS: Operative mortality was 3.5% (9 of 257). Median postoperative echocardiographic time was 16 months. On follow-up echocardiography, mean peak aortic valve gradient decreased from 76 ± 27 mm Hg preoperatively to 32 ± 13 mm Hg and the mean gradient decreased from 46 ± 17 mm Hg to 18 ± 8 mm Hg (both p < 0.001) Mean left ventricular mass decreased from 191 g to 162 g (p < 0.001). Postoperative survival did not differ significantly between patients who met the criteria for patient-prosthesis mismatch and those who did not (p = 0.607). CONCLUSIONS: In a series of elderly patients with aortic stenosis who were implanted with 19-mm bioprosthetic valves, long-term follow-up showed significant left ventricular mass regression and peak and mean aortic valve gradient reductions. The use of 19-mm aortic valves is safe and efficacious for elderly patients with a small aortic root.

Long term outcomes of posterior leaflet folding valvuloplasty for mitral valve regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Posterior mitral valve leaflet prolapse due to degenerative mitral valve disease has been treated with tissue sparing repair techniques since 2002. The simplified foldoplasty technique effectively lowers the height of the redundant posterior leaflet and creates an optimal coaptation line for the anterior leaflet that results in excellent long term durability, freedom from reoperation, and return of functional status. METHODS: Patient demographics and in-hospital outcome data were extracted from electronic medical records of 229 patients, aged 60.6±13.7 years who underwent the procedure for mitral valve repair (MVR) involving the posterior leaflet from myxomatous disease between 2002 and 2014. Parametric analyses were performed on outcomes data, while long-term survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: Concomitant coronary bypass surgery was performed on 32/229 (14%) patients, the mean perfusion time was 119±40 min, and the mean cross clamp time was 86±31 min. Post-operative mortality was 2/229 (0.9%), reoperation for bleeding occurred in 4 (1.7%) and postoperative stroke in 4 (1.7%) patients. Long term follow up rate was 100% and the mean study follow-up duration was 6.8±2.3 years. Overall late mortality rate was 24/229 (14.9%), and mitral valve re-intervention was performed on 7 patients (4.3%). NYHA class III/IV and clinically significant MR at follow up were significantly lower compared to preoperative values (both P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results encourage further use of this simple and effective technique in patients with isolated posterior leaflet prolapse.

Influence of experience and the surgical learning curve on long-term patient outcomes in cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that increased postgraduate surgical experience correlates with improved operative efficiency and long-term survival in standard cardiac surgery procedures. METHODS: Utilizing a prospectively collected retrospective database, we identified patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 3726), aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n = 1626), mitral valve repair (n = 731), mitral valve replacement (MVR) (n = 324), and MVR + AVR (n = 184) from January 2002 through June 2012. After adjusting for patient risk and surgeon variability, we evaluated the influence of surgeon experience on cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times, and long-term survival. RESULTS: Mean surgeon experience after fellowship graduation was 16.0 ± 11.7 years (range, 1.0-35.2 years). After adjusting for patient risk and surgeon-level fixed effects, learning curve analyses demonstrated improvements in cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times with increased surgeon experience. There was marginal improvement in the predictability (R(2) value) of cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp time for CABG with the addition of surgeon experience; however, all other procedures had marked increases in the R(2) following addition of surgeon experience. Cox proportional hazard models revealed that increased surgeon experience was associated with improved long-term survival in AVR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P < .0001), mitral valve repair (HR, 0.73; P < .0001), and MVR + AVR (HR, 0.95; P = .006) but not in CABG (HR, 0.80; P = .15), and a trend toward significance in MVR (HR, 0.87; P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac surgery, not including CABG, surgeon experience is an important determinant of operative efficiency and of long-term survival.

Evolution of the concept and practice of mitral valve repair.

The first successful mitral valve repair was performed by Elliot Cutler at Brigham and Women's Hospital in 1923. Subsequent evolution in the surgical techniques as well as multi-disciplinary cooperation between cardiac surgeons, cardiologists and cardiac anesthesiologists has resulted in excellent outcomes. In spite of this, the etiology of mitral valve pathology ultimately determines the outcome of mitral valve repair.

Appropriate patient selection or health care rationing? Lessons from surgical aortic valve replacement in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves I trial.

OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to (1) compare the safety of high-risk surgical aortic valve replacement in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) I trial with Society of Thoracic Surgeons national benchmarks; (2) reference intermediate-term survival to that of the US population; and (3) identify subsets of patients for whom aortic valve replacement may be futile, with no survival benefit compared with therapy without aortic valve replacement. METHODS: From May 2007 to October 2009, 699 patients with high surgical risk, aged 84 ± 6.3 years, were randomized in PARTNER-IA; 313 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Survival for therapy without aortic valve replacement used 181 PARTNER-IB patients. RESULTS: Operative mortality was 10.5% (expected 9.3%), stroke 2.6% (expected 3.5%), renal failure 5.8% (expected 12%), sternal wound infection 0.64% (expected 0.33%), and prolonged length of stay 26% (expected 18%). However, calibration of observed events in this relatively small sample was poor. Survival at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years was 75%, 68%, 57%, and 44%, respectively, lower than 90%, 81%, 73%, and 65%, respectively, in the US population, but higher than 53%, 32%, 21%, and 14%, respectively, in patients without aortic valve replacement. Risk factors for death included smaller body mass index, lower albumin, history of cancer, and prosthesis-patient mismatch. Within this high-risk aortic valve replacement group, only the 8% of patients with the poorest risk profiles had estimated 1-year survival less than that of similar patients treated without aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: PARTNER selection criteria for surgical aortic valve replacement, with a few caveats, may be more appropriate, realistic indications for surgery than those of the past, reflecting contemporary surgical management of severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients at experienced sites.

Surgical Embolectomy for Acute Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism in a Series of 115 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolectomy is often indicated for central pulmonary embolism (PE) with hemodynamic instability, but remains controversial for hemodynamically stable patients with signs of right ventricular dysfunction. Because thrombolytic therapy is often contraindicated postoperatively, we reviewed risk factors and outcomes of pulmonary embolectomy for stable and unstable central PE, particularly in the early postoperative period. METHODS: Between October 1999 and September 2013, 115 patients underwent pulmonary embolectomy for central, hemodynamically unstable PE (49 of 115, 43%) or hemodynamically stable PE (56 of 115, 49%). Ten operations for alternate indications (right atrial mass, endocarditis) were excluded for comparison analysis, leaving 105 patients. RESULTS: Mean age was 59 ± 13 years; 46 of 105 patients (44%) had recent surgery (within 5 weeks): orthopedic (12 of 46, 25%), neurosurgery (11 of 46, 24%), or general surgery (10 of 46, 22%). Preoperative demographics did not differ between groups, except for the frequency of cardiopulmonary resuscitation among unstable patients (11 of 49, 22%) versus stable patients (0 of 56, 0%; p < 0.001). Operative mortality for the combined groups was 6.6% (7 of 105): unstable 10.2% (5 of 49) versus stable 3.6% (2 of 56; p = 0.247). Of 11 patients requiring preoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 4 died. Six-month, 1-year, and 3-year survival rates were, respectively, 75%, 68.4%, and 65.8% for unstable PE, and 92.6%, 86.7%, and 80.4% for stable PE (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: This large series of pulmonary embolectomies demonstrates excellent early and late survival rates for patients with stable PE and unstable PE. These findings confirm pulmonary embolectomy as a beneficial therapeutic option for central PE, especially during the postoperative period when thrombolytic therapy is often contraindicated.

The impact of a minimally invasive approach on reoperative aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The advantages of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) are well documented, but whether the benefits extend to subsequent reoperative aortic valve surgery and beyond is unknown. The study aim was to compare in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival following reoperative AVR between patients who had previous undergone either minimally invasive AVR (mini-AVR) or full sternotomy AVR (sAVR). METHODS: All reoperative, isolated AVRs performed between July 1997 and September 2013 at the authors' institution, with or without non-complex aortic surgery, were identified. Patients were excluded if AVR was not isolated, had occurred prior to July 1997, or if the initial AVR was performed before the patient was aged 18 years. All reoperations were performed through a full sternotomy. The main outcomes of interest were operative results and long-term survival. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients was identified, of which 34 had undergone previous mini-AVR and 67 previous sAVR. The time from the previous AVR was similar in both groups (median 7.6 years overall). Of previous valve implants, 57 were bioprostheses and 44 mechanical; structural valve degeneration was the most common indication for surgery (43/101). Mini-AVR and sAVR patients did not differ significantly with regards to patient demographics and preoperative risk factors. A strong trend towards shorter skin-to-skin operative times was observed for mini-AVR (330 min versus 356 min; p = 0.053). Postoperatively, mini-AVR patients had a shorter ventilation time (5.7 h versus 8.4 h; p = 0.005), intensive care unit stay (37 h versus 63 h; p ≤ 0.001) and hospital length of stay (6.5 days versus 8.0 days; p = 0.038). There was one operative mortality in the sAVR, and none in the mini-AVR group. Mid-term survival at one and five years for mini-AVR was 100% (95% CI 100-100) and 100% (95% CI 100-100), and for sAVR was 93.9% (95% CI 88.2-99.7) and 85.0% (95% CI 75.1-94.9), respectively (p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Mini-AVR confers benefits during subsequent reoperative AVR, with shorter hospital stays and improved long-term survival. These findings suggest that mini-AVR should be considered for patients at risk for aortic valve reoperation, and describes a previously unreported advantage of this well-established technique.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy: the Brigham and Women's Hospital experience.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery (mini AVR) is a safe and effective treatment option at many hospital centers, but there has not been widespread adoption of the procedure. Critics of mini AVR have called for additional evidence with direct comparison to aortic valve replacement (AVR) via full sternotomy (FS). METHODS: Our mini AVR approach is through a hemi-sternotomy (HS). We performed a propensity-score matched analysis of all patients undergoing isolated AVR via FS or HS at our institution since 2002, resulting in 552 matched pairs. Baseline characteristics were similar. Operative characteristics, transfusion rates, in-hospital outcomes as well as short and long term survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp times were shorter in the HS group: 106 minutes [inter-quartile ranges (IQR) 87-135] vs. 124 minutes (IQR 90-169), P≤0.001, and 76 minutes (IQR 63-97) vs. 80 minutes (IQR 62-114), P≤0.005, respectively. HS patients had shorter ventilation times (median 5.7 hours, IQR 3.5-10.3 vs. 6.3 hours, IQR 3.9-11.2, P≤0.022), shorter intensive care unit stay (median 42 hours, IQR 24-71 vs. 45 hours, IQR 24-87, P≤0.039), and shorter hospital length of stay (median 6 days, IQR 5-8 vs. 7 days, IQR 5-10, P≤0.001) compared with the FS group. Intraoperative transfusions were more common in FS group: 27.9% vs. 20.0%, P≤0.003. No differences were seen in short or long term survival, or time to aortic valve re-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the clinical benefits of minimally invasive AVR via HS, which includes decreased transfusion requirements, ventilation times, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay without compromising short and long term survival compared to conventional AVR via FS.

History of Cardiac Surgery at the Peter Bent Brigham and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

The history of the Brigham dates from 1913, Harvey Cushing was the first chief of surgery and while at Hopkins did research on mitral stenosis, In 1913 he chose Elliot cutler to be a resident and in 1913 Cutler did the first successful valve operation in the world setting the tone of innovation and dedication to cardiac disease surgical treatment over the next century. There was large numbers of closed mitrals operations in 40s-60s. Bioprothetic valve implantation in the 70s mitral valve repair beginning in the 80s and continuing to the present and one of the first proponents of minimally invasive valve surgery starting in the 90s continuing to the present .