A Retrospective Evaluation of Endo-Aortic Balloon Occlusion Compared to External Clamping in Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery.

We compare outcomes of endo-aortic balloon occlusion (EABO) vs external aortic clamping (EAC) in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Adults undergoing mitral valve surgery (July 2017-December 2018) were identified within the STS database (N = 60,607). Total 7,978 patients underwent a minimally invasive approach (including robotically assisted). About 1,163 EABO patients were 1:1 propensity-matched to EAC patients using exact matching on age, sex, and type of mitral procedure, and propensity score average matching for 16 other risk indicators. Early outcomes were compared. Categorical variables were compared using logistic regression; hospital and intensive care unit length of stay were compared using negative binomial regression. In the matched cohort, mean age was 62 years; 35.9% were female, and 86% underwent mitral valve repair. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was shorter for EABO vs EAC group (125.0 ± 53.0 vs 134.0 ± 67.0 minutes, P = 0.0009). There was one aortic dissection in the EAC group and none in the EABO group (P value > 0.31), and no statistically significant differences in cross-clamp time, major intraoperative bleeding, perioperative mortality, stroke, new onset of atrial fibrillation, postoperative acute kidney injury, success of repair. Median hospital LOS was shorter for EABO vs EAC procedures (4 vs 5 days, P < 0.0001). In this large, retrospective, STS database propensity-matched analysis ofpatients undergoing MIMVS, we observed similar safety outcomes for EABO and EAC, including no aortic dissections in the EABO group. The EABO group showed slightly shorter CPB times and hospital LOS.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on drug overdoses in the United States and the effect on cardiac transplant volume and survival.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdose (DO) deaths rose to unprecedented levels during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study examines the impact of COVID-19 on the availability of cardiac allografts from DO donors and the implications of DO donor use on recipient survival. METHODS: Heart transplants reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing from January 2017 to November 2019 ("pre-COVID") and from March 2020 to June 2021 ("COVID pandemic") were analyzed with respect to DO donor status. Outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression to identify predictors of survival. Characteristics of discarded cardiac allografts were also compared by DO donor status. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, 27.2% of cardiac allografts were from DO donors vs 20.5% pre-COVID, a 32.7% increase (p < 0.001). During the pandemic, DO donors were younger (84.7% vs 76.3% <40 years, p < 0.001), had higher cigarette use (16.1% vs 10.8%, p < 0.001), higher cocaine use (47.4% vs 19.7%, p < 0.001), and higher incidence of hepatitis C antibodies (26.8% vs 6.1%, p < 0.001) and RNA positivity (16.2% vs 4.2%, p < 0.001). While DO donors were less likely to require inotropic support (30.8% vs 35.4%, p = 0.008), they were more likely to have received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (95.3% vs 43.2%, p < 0.001). Recipient survival was equivalent using Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank, p = 0.33) and survival probability at 36 months was 85.6% (n at risk = 398) for DO donors vs 83.5% (n at risk = 1,633) for all other donors. Cox regression demonstrated that DO donor status did not predict mortality (hazard ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval 0.90-1.23, p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 32.7% increase in heart transplants utilizing DO donor hearts, and DO became the most common mechanism of death for donors. The use of DO donor hearts did not have an impact on short-term recipient survival.

Routine Extubation in the Operating Room After Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of fast-track extubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiac surgery are well established. Although extubation in the operating room (OR) is safe in carefully selected patients, widespread use of this strategy in cardiac surgery remains unproven. This study was designed to evaluate perioperative outcomes with OR vs ICU extubation in patients undergoing nonemergency, isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) data for all single-center patients who underwent nonemergency isolated CABG over a 6-year interval were analyzed. Perioperative morbidity and mortality with ICU vs OR extubation were compared. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2022, 1397 patients underwent nonemergency, isolated CABG; 891 (63.8%) of these patients were extubated in the ICU, and 506 (36.2%) were extubated in the OR. Propensity matching resulted in 414 pairs. In the propensity-matched cohort, there were no differences between the 2 groups in incidence of reintubation, reoperation for bleeding, total operative time, stroke or transient ischemic attack, renal failure, or 30-day mortality. OR-extubated patients had shorter ICU hours (14 hours vs 20 hours; P < .0001), shorter postoperative hospital length of stay (3 days vs 5 days; P < .0001), a greater likelihood of being discharged directly to home (97.3% vs 89.9%; P < .0001), and a lower 30-day readmission rate (1.7% vs 4.1%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Routine extubation in the OR is a feasible and safe strategy for a broad spectrum of patients after nonemergency CABG, with no increase in perioperative morbidity or mortality. Wider adoption of routine OR extubation for nonemergency CABG is indicated.

Robotic Mitral Valve Repair for Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary national utilization and comparative safety data of robotic mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation compared with nonrobotic approaches are lacking. The study aimed to characterize national trends of utilization and outcomes of robotic mitral repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation compared with sternotomy and thoracotomy approaches. METHODS: Patients undergoing intended mitral repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database between 2015 and 2021 were examined. Mitral repair was performed in 61,322 patients. Descriptive analyses characterized center-level volumes and outcomes. Propensity score matching separately identified 5540 pairs of robotic vs thoracotomy approaches and 6962 pairs of robotic vs sternotomy approaches. Outcomes were operative mortality, composite mortality and major morbidity, postoperative length of stay, and conversion to mitral replacement. RESULTS: Through the 7-year study period, 116 surgeons across 103 hospitals performed mitral repair robotically. The proportion of robotic cases increased from 10.9% (949 of 8712) in 2015 to 14.6% (1274 of 8730) in 2021. In both robotic-thoracotomy and robotic-sternotomy matched pairs, mortality and morbidity were not significantly different, whereas the robotic approach had lower conversion (1.2% vs 3.1% for robotic-thoracotomy and 1.0% vs 3.7% for robotic-sternotomy), shorter length of stay, and fewer 30-day readmissions. Mortality and morbidity were lower at higher-volume centers, crossing the national mean mortality and morbidity at a cumulative robotic mitral repair case of 40. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic mitral repair is a safe and effective approach and is associated with comparable mortality and morbidity, a lower conversion rate, a shorter length of stay, and fewer 30-day readmissions than thoracotomy or sternotomy approaches.

Subvalvular techniques enhanced with endoscopic robotic mitral valve repair.

Objective: Totally endoscopic intracardiac robotic surgery is generally limited to uncomplicated mitral valve surgery. With experience, our team has developed a more aggressive approach to robotic cardiac surgery that allows for repair of a broad spectrum of mitral valve pathologies. We report complex subvalvular procedural advancements associated with this approach secondary to enhanced team experience and capabilities. Methods: All robotic mitral procedures performed by a 2-surgeon team in a quaternary care medical center from July 2011 to May 2022 were reviewed. Natural language-processing techniques were used to analyze operative reports for subvalvular repair techniques. Complex subvalvular techniques included papillary muscle repositioning, division of secondary anterior leaflet chordae, septal myomectomy, division of aberrant left ventricular muscle band attachments, and left ventricular patch reconstruction. The surgical experience was divided into 2 periods: early robotic experience (pre-2018) versus late (2018 onwards). Baseline demographics, outcomes, and subvalvular techniques were analyzed and compared. Results: A total of 1287 intracardiac robotic operations were performed by a 2-surgeon team. Thirty-day mortality was 0.6% (8/1287). Mitral valve repair was performed in 1024 patients. The mean age was 61 years (range, 18-90 years), and 15% were >75 years old; 29 patients (2.8%) had previously undergone cardiac surgery. There was a significant increase with experience in the application of advanced subvalvular techniques between the early versus late period (52.3% [268/512] vs 74.2% [380/512] (P < .001)). Conclusions: An experienced 2-surgeon team can perform progressively more complex robotic subvalvular repair techniques. These subvalvular techniques are a surrogate for team proficiency and capabilities.

Cost and Clinical Outcomes Evaluation Between the Endoaortic Balloon and External Aortic Clamp in Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Endoaortic balloon occlusion facilitates cardioplegic arrest during minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Studies have shown endoclamping to be as safe as traditional aortic clamping. We compared outcomes and hospital costs of endoclamping versus external aortic occlusion in a large administrative database. METHODS: There were 52,882 adults undergoing eligible cardiac surgery (October 2015 to March 2020) identified in the Premier Healthcare Database. Endoclamp procedures (n = 419) were 1:3 propensity score matched to similar procedures using external aortic occlusion (n = 1,244). Generalized linear modeling measured differences in in-hospital complications (major adverse renal and cardiac events, including mortality, new-onset atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury [AKI], myocardial infarction [MI], postcardiotomy syndrome, stroke/transient ischemic attack [TIA], and aortic dissection) and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: The mean age was 63 years, and 53% were male (n = 882). The majority (93%, n = 1,543) were mitral valve procedures, and 17% of procedures (n = 285) were robot-assisted. Total hospitalization costs were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups ($52,158 vs $49,839, P = 0.06). The median LOS was significantly shorter in the endoclamp group (incident rate ratio = 0.87, P < 0.001). Mortality, atrial fibrillation, AKI, and stroke/TIA were similar between the 2 groups. MI and postcardiotomy syndrome were lower in the endoclamp group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.14, P = 0.006, and OR = 0.27, P = 0.005). There were no aortic dissections in the endoclamp group. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic endoclamping in MIS was associated with similar costs, shorter LOS, no dissections, and comparably low mortality and stroke rates when compared with external clamping in this hospital billing dataset. These results demonstrate the clinical safety and efficacy of endoaortic balloon clamping in a real-world setting. Further studies are warranted.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Impact on Host Transcriptomic Response in Severe Coronavirus.

Background: Evidence suggests that patients critically ill with COVID-19 have a dysregulated host immune response that contributes to end-organ damage. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used in this population with varying degrees of success. This study was performed to evaluate the impact of ECMO on the host immunotranscriptomic response in these patients. Methods: Eleven patients critically ill with COVID-19 requiring ECMO underwent an analysis of cytokines and immunotranscriptomic pathways before ECMO (T1), after ECMO for 24 hours (T2), and 2 hours after ECMO decannulation (T3). A Multiplex Human Cytokine panel was used to identify cytokine changes, and immunotranscriptomic changes in peripheral leukocytes were evaluated by PAXgene and NanoString nCounter. Results: Differential gene expression of 11 host immune genes was noted at T2 compared with T1. The most significant genes were MD2 and MRC1, which code for binding ligands for the activation of toll-like receptors 2 and 4. Reactome analyses of differential gene expression demonstrated an impact on many of the body's most important immune inflammatory pathways. Conclusions: These findings suggest a temporal impact of ECMO on the host immunotranscriptomic response in patients critically ill with COVID-19.

One-Year Outcomes With Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support for Severe COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used in patients in whom conventional mechanical ventilatory support has failed. To date, published data have focused on survival from ECMO and survival to discharge. In addition to survival to discharge, this study reports 1-year follow-up data for patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective review of all patients with severe COVID-19 who were cannulated for VV-ECMO between March 10, 2020 and May 1, 2020 was performed. A multidisciplinary ECMO team evaluated, selected, and managed patients with ECMO support. The primary outcome of this study was survival to discharge. Available 1-year follow-up data are also reported. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were supported with VV-ECMO, and 27 patients (90%) survived to discharge. All patients were discharged home or to acute rehabilitation on room air, except for 1 patient (3.7%), who required supplemental oxygen therapy. At a median follow-up of 10.8 months (interquartile range [IQR], 8.9-14.4 months) since ECMO cannulation, survival was 86.7%, including 1 patient who underwent lung transplantation. Of the patients discharged from the hospital, 44.4% (12/27) had pulmonary function testing, with a median percent predicted forced expiratory volume of 100% (IQR, 91%-110%). For survivors, a 6-minute walk test was performed in 59.3% (16/27), with a median value of 350 m (IQR, 286-379 m). CONCLUSIONS: A well-defined patient selection and management strategy of VV-ECMO support in patients with severe COVID-19 resulted in exceptional survival to discharge that was sustained at 1-year after ECMO cannulation.