Hybrid strategies for stand-alone surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) has been reported as a major cause of cardiac morbidity and mortality, and significantly reduces the quality of life in symptomatic patients. Current guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation (CA) as first-line therapy. Despite CA showed to be associated with lower incidence of peri-procedural complications, rhythm outcomes are far from optimal. Indeed, patients undergoing CA frequently require multiple AF ablation procedures, especially in those with persistent and long-standing persistent AF. While surgical ablation can provide transmural lesions, surgical invasiveness has limited the widespread use of this approach due to the increased perioperative complications. The development of minimally invasive thoracoscopic approaches has renewed the interest towards surgical ablation, thus favoring more simplified ablation sets. Therefore, the concept of "hybrid" ablation has emerged in order to theoretically enhance advantages of both minimally invasive and CA procedures while seeking to improve rhythm outcomes and reduce invasiveness and incidence of perioperative complications. On one hand, it provides the effectiveness of a surgical ablation, on the other, electrical mapping during CA can identify and treat any ablation gap or provide additional ablation lines, thus improving the chance of a stable sinus rhythm restoration at long-term follow-up. Three main thoracoscopic strategies are currently available. All of them can be performed in conjunction with the "catheter ablation procedure": the "Fusion" technique, the bipolar clamp technique, and the most recent "convergent" technique. CA can be performed either simultaneously or with a staged approach after a blanking period in order to allow the ablation lesion to stabilize. Excellent results of the hybrid procedures have been reported in terms of rhythm outcomes and incidence of perioperative complications. This narrative review aims to discuss the rationale behind the concept of hybrid ablation for the treatment of AF regarding different available strategies, results and expert opinions.

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.

Left Atrium Volume Reduction Procedure Concomitant With Cox-Maze Ablation in Patients Undergoing Mitral Valve Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Rhythm Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The management of an enlarged left atrium (LA) in mitral valve (MV) disease with atrial fibrillation (AF) is still being debated. It has been postulated that a reduction in LA size may improve patient outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to assess rhythm and clinical outcomes of combined surgical AF treatment with or without LA volume reduction (LAVR) in patients undergoing MV surgery. METHODS: A systematic review was performed and all available literature to May 2022 was included. The primary endpoint was analysis of early and late mortality and rhythm outcomes. Secondary outcomes included early and late cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and permanent pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 2,808 potentially relevant articles, and 19 papers were eventually included. The pooled estimated rate of 30-day mortality was 3.76% (95% CI 2.52-5.56). The incidence rate of late mortality and late cardiac-related mortality was 1.75%/year (95% CI 0.63-4.84) and 1.04%/year (95% CI 0.31-3.53), respectively. At subgroup analysis when comparing the surgical procedure with and without AF ablation, the ablation subgroup showed a significantly lower rate of postoperative CVA (p<0.0001) and higher restoration to sinus rhythm at discharge (p=0.0124), with only a trend of lower AF recurrence at 1 year (p=0.0608). At univariable meta-regression, reintervention was significantly associated with higher late mortality (p=0.0033). CONCLUSION: In enlarged LA undergoing MV surgery, LAVR combined with AF ablation showed a trend of improved rhythm outcomes when compared with AF ablation without LAVR. Each LAVR technique has its advantages and disadvantages, which must be managed accordingly.

Sutureless versus transcatheter valves in patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate risk: A multi-institutional European study.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials showed comparable short-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate and low-risk patients. However, independent studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation results versus surgical aortic valve replacement at 5 years showed worsening outcomes in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The aim of this study was to analyze mid- to long-term outcomes of patients with isolated aortic stenosis and an intermediate-risk profile who underwent aortic valve replacement using a sutureless valve versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation. METHODS: This retrospective multi-institutional European study investigated 2,123 consecutive patients with isolated aortic stenosis at intermediate risk profile treated with sutureless aortic valve replacement (824 patients) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (1,299 patients) from 2013 to 2020. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 2 balanced groups of 517 patients were obtained. Primary endpoints were as follows: 30 days, late all-cause, and cardiac-related mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events (all-cause death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, endocarditis, reoperation, permanent pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular leak grade ≥2). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 4.3 years (interquartile range 1.1-7.4 years). Primary endpoints were as follows-30-day mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 2.13% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 4.64% (P = .026), all-cause mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 36.7% ± 7.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41.8% ± 8.2% (P = .023), and cardiac-related mortality sutureless aortic valve replacement: 10.2% ± 2.8% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 19.2% ± 3.5%;(P = .00043) at follow-up. Secondary endpoints were as follows-major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events in the sutureless aortic valve replacement group: 47.2% ± 9.0% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 57.3% ± 7.5% (P < .001). In particular, the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (sutureless aortic valve replacement: 6.38% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 11.8% [P = .002]) and paravalvular leak ≥2 (sutureless aortic valve replacement: 0.97% versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 4.84% [P = .001]) was significantly higher in transcatheter aortic valve implantation group. At Multivariable Cox regression analysis, paravalvular leak ≥2 (hazard ratio: 1.63%; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-2.53, P = .042) and permanent pacemaker implantation (hazard ratio: 1.49%; 95% confidence interval: 1.02-2.20, P = .039) were identified as predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: Sutureless aortic valve replacement showed a significantly lower incidence of all-cause mortality, cardiac-related death, permanent pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular leak than transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Moreover, permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak negatively affected survival in patients treated for isolated aortic stenosis.

Rhythm outcomes of minimally-invasive off-pump surgical versus catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data.

BACKGROUND: Mid- and long-term rhythm outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) are reported to be suboptimal. Minimally invasive surgical off-pump ablation (MISOA), including both thoracoscopic and trans-diaphragmatic approaches, has been developed to reduce surgical invasiveness and overcome on-pump surgery drawbacks. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of MISOA and CA for AF treatment. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed including studies comparing MISOA and CA. The primary endpoint was survival freedom from AF at follow-up after a 3-month blanking period. Subgroup analysis of the primary endpoint was performed according to the type of surgical incision and hybrid approach. RESULTS: Freedom from AF at 4 years was 52.1% ± 3.2% vs 29.1% ± 3.5%, between MISOA and CA respectively (log-rank p < 0.001; Hazard Ratio: 0.60 [95%Confidence Interval (CI):0.50-0.72], p < 0.001). At landmark analysis, a significant improvement in rhythm outcomes was observed in the MISOA group after the 5th month of follow-up (2 months from the blanking period). The Odds Ratio between MISOA and CA of postoperative cerebrovascular accident incidence and postoperative permanent pacemaker implant (PPM) were 2.00 (95%CI:0.91-4.40, p = 0.084) and 1.55 (95%CI:0.61-3.95, p = 0.358), respectively. The incidence rate ratio of late CVA between MISOA and CA was 0.86 (95%CI:0.28-2.65, p = 0.787), while for late PPM implant was 0.45 (95%CI:0.11-1.78, p = 0.256). CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis suggests that MISOA provides superior rhythm outcomes when compared to CA in terms of sinus rhythm restoration. Despite the rhythm outcome superiority of MISOA, it is associated to higher postoperative complications compared to CA.

Surgical treatment of mediastinitis: The vertical bolstered Donati stitch.

Deep sternal wound infection is a major complication of cardiac surgery, with a low incidence but with catastrophic consequences in terms of morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. Negative pressure wound therapy and appropriately timed sternal revision, with or without muscle flap mobilization, can improve the outcomes. This video tutorial illustrates the technical aspects of the surgical treatment of mediastinitis with the Robicsek method for sternal closure and an original wound closure technique, very effective and much simpler than the pectoral muscle flap technique.

MIDCAB Tips and tricks for a successful procedure.

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) for a left internal mammary artery on left anterior descending (LIMA-LAD) graft, is a safe and relatively less traumatic surgical technique. Adoption in some centers has been slow because of perceived technical difficulty, but it should be considered a first-choice therapy for patients with isolated proximal LAD lesions or multi-vessel disease, and as a component of a hybrid revascularization strategy.  Results in our institute, where we have been using MIDCAB for more than 20 years, confirm both its short- and long-term efficacy. This video tutorial demonstrates the technical aspects of the procedure.