Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor Promotes Thromboinflammation and Predicts Fast Progression of Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis (AS) is driven by progressive inflammatory and fibrocalcific processes regulated by circulating inflammatory and valve resident endothelial and interstitial cells. The impact of platelets, platelet-derived mediators, and platelet-monocyte interactions on the acceleration of local valvular inflammation and mineralization is presently unknown. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 475 consecutive patients with severe symptomatic AS undergoing aortic valve replacement. Clinical workup included repetitive echocardiography, analysis of platelets, monocytes, chemokine profiling, aortic valve tissue samples for immunohistochemistry, and gene expression analysis. RESULTS: The patients were classified as fast-progressive AS by the median ∆Vmax of 0.45 m/s per year determined by echocardiography. Immunohistological aortic valve analysis revealed enhanced cellularity in fast-progressive AS (slow- versus fast-progressive AS; median [interquartile range], 247 [142.3-504] versus 717.5 [360.5-1234]; P<0.001) with less calcification (calcification area, mm2: 33.74 [27.82-41.86] versus 20.54 [13.52-33.41]; P<0.001). MIF (macrophage migration inhibitory factor)-associated gene expression was significantly enhanced in fast-progressive AS accompanied by significantly elevated MIF plasma levels (mean±SEM; 6877±379.1 versus 9959±749.1; P<0.001), increased platelet activation, and decreased intracellular MIF expression indicating enhanced MIF release upon platelet activation (CD62P, %: median [interquartile range], 16.8 [11.58-23.8] versus 20.55 [12.48-32.28], P=0.005; MIF, %: 4.85 [1.48-9.75] versus 2.3 [0.78-5.9], P<0.001). Regression analysis confirmed that MIF-associated biomarkers are strongly associated with an accelerated course of AS. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a key role for platelet-derived MIF and its interplay with circulating and valve resident monocytes/macrophages in local and systemic thromboinflammation during accelerated AS. MIF-based biomarkers predict an accelerated course of AS and represent a novel pharmacological target to attenuate progression of AS.

Partial versus Complete Sternotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement-Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of minimally invasive techniques in cardiac surgery remain poorly defined. We evaluated the short- and mid-term outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement through partial upper versus complete median sternotomy (MS) in a large, German multicenter cohort. METHODS: A total of 2,929 patients underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy (PUS, n = 1,764) or MS (n = 1,165) at nine participating heart centers between 2016 and 2020. After propensity-score matching, 1,990 patients were eligible for analysis. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 30 days and in follow-up, up to 5 years. Secondary end points were acute kidney injury, length of hospital stay, transfusions, deep sternal wound infection, Dressler's syndrome, rehospitalization, and conversion to sternotomy. RESULTS: Unadjusted MACCE rates were significantly lower in the PUS group both at 30 days (p = 0.02) and in 5-year follow-up (p = 0.01). However, after propensity-score matching, differences between the groups were no more statistically significant: MACCE rates were 3.9% (PUS) versus 5.4% (MS, p = 0.14) at 30 days, and 9.9 versus 11.3% in 5-year follow-up (p = 0.36). In the minimally invasive group, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay was shorter (p = 0.03), Dressler's syndrome occurred less frequently (p = 0.006), and the rate of rehospitalization was reduced significantly (p < 0.001). There were 3.8% conversions to full sternotomy. CONCLUSION: In a large, German multicenter cohort, MACCE rates were comparable in surgical aortic valve replacement through partial upper and complete sternotomies. Shorter ICU stay and lower rates of Dressler's syndrome and rehospitalization were in favor of the partial sternotomy group.

Under-recognition of Acute Kidney Injury after Cardiac Surgery in the ICU Impedes Early Detection and Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with high morbidity and mortality; therefore, prevention is important. The aim of this study was to systematically assess AKI incidence after cardiac surgery as documented in clinical routine compared to the real incidence because AKI may be under-recognized in clinical practice. Further, its postoperative management was compared to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) recommendations because recognition and adequate treatment represent the fundamental cornerstone in the prevention and management of AKI. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included n = 100 patients who underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The coded incidence of postoperative AKI during intensive care unit stay after surgery was compared to the real AKI incidence. Furthermore, conformity of postoperative parameters with KDIGO recommendations for AKI prevention and management was reviewed. RESULTS: We found a considerable discrepancy between coded and real incidence, and conformity with KDIGO recommendations was found to be relatively low. The coded incidence was significantly lower (n = 12 vs. n = 52, p < 0.05), representing a coding rate of 23.1%. Regarding postoperative management, 90% of all patients had at least 1 episode with mean arterial pressure <65 mm Hg within the first 72 h. Furthermore, regarding other preventive parameters (avoiding hyperglycemia, stopping angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, avoiding contrast media, and nephrotoxic drugs), only 10 patients (20.8%) in the non-AKI group and in 5 (9.6%) subjects in the AKI group had none of all the above potential AKI-promoting factors. CONCLUSIONS: AKI recognition in everyday clinical routine seems to be low, especially in lower AKI stages, and the current postoperative management still offers potential for optimization. Possibly, higher AKI awareness and stricter postoperative management could already achieve significant effects in prevention and treatment of AKI.

Left Subclavian Artery Sacrifice in Acute Aortic Dissection Repair using the Frozen Elephant Trunk.

OBJECTIVE: Surgery of acute aortic dissection using the frozen elephant trunk (FET) can be complicated when the origin of the left subclavian artery (LSA) is dissected and sacrifice by ligation is a viable option. However, the LSA is supposed to play a role in neuroprotection as a major collateral. We, therefore, analyzed our results of LSA sacrifice in this cohort. METHODS: We identified a total of 84 patients from our prospectively collected database who underwent FET repair of acute aortic dissection between October 2009 and April 2018. LSA was sacrificed in 19 patients (22.6%). Results were analyzed and compared with regard to neurological outcomes. RESULTS: New postoperative stroke was seen in two patients (2.4%) and spinal cord injury in three patients (3.6%) overall, none in the LSA-sacrifice group. We observed a temporary neurological deficit in five patients (6.0%) overall, none in the LSA-sacrifice group. None of the patients developed acute ischemia of the left arm. Only two patients (12.5%) came back for carotid-subclavian artery bypass due to exertion-induced weakness of the left arm 3 to 4 months after the initial surgery. In-hospital mortality was 15.5% overall, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSION: LSA sacrifice was not associated with elevated postoperative risk of either central or spinal neurological injury. Thus, it can facilitate FET repair of acute aortic dissection in selected cases when the left subclavian origin cannot be preserved. Carotid-subclavian artery bypass became necessary in only a small fraction of these patients and can be performed as a second-stage procedure.

Implantation of leadless pacing systems in patients early after tricuspid valve surgery: A feasible option.

BACKGROUND: After tricuspid valve (TV) surgery due to tricuspid regurgitation (TR), patients needing a permanent pacemaker often receive an epicardial lead implantation. This may result in delayed recovery from open-chest surgery and increased postoperative risk. Leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation may represent a valuable option. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 14 consecutive patients underwent LPM implantation (Micra Transcatheter Pacing System, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) early after TV surgery. The pacing indication in those patients was atrial fibrillation with a slow atrio-ventricular (AV) conduction or atrial fibrillation and a concomitant AV block III. Three patients already had a pacemaker prior to surgery, which was explanted during TV repair. Three patients received a valve replacement with a bioprosthesis, while the remaining eight patients received a TV repair. All procedural data and device measurements during and after LPM implantation were recorded. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed prior and post LPM implantation, showing no changes in TV or bioprosthesis performance. The device measurements were within an adequate range: threshold: 0.83 ± 0.34 V @ 0.24 ± 0 ms, impedance: 480 ± 58.88 ohm, and R-wave: 10.10 ± 3.60 mV. LPM implantation was successful in all patients with a mean procedural time of 32 ± 11.8 minutes, fluoroscopy time of 3.71 ± 3.15 minutes, and dose-area product of 536.67 ± 811.26 cGy/m2 . CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of an LPM early after TV surgery is a feasible option. LPM implantation does not affect TV or bioprosthesis performance in transthoracic echocardiography.

Predictors of Outcome for Aortic Valve Reimplantation Including the Surgeon-A Single-Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic valve reimplantation is considered technically demanding. We searched for predictors of long-term outcome including the surgeon as risk factor. METHODS: We selected all aortic valve reimplantations performed in our department between December 1999 and January 2017 and obtained a complete follow-up. The main indications were combined aortic aneurysm plus aortic valve regurgitation (AR), 69% and aortic dissections (15%). In 14%, valves were bicuspid. Cusp repair was performed in 27% of patients. One-third received additional procedures (coronary artery bypass grafting, mitral, or arch surgery). We performed multivariable analyses for independent risk factors of short- and long-term outcomes, including "surgeon" as variable. Twelve different surgeons operated on 193 patients. We created three groups: surgeons A and B with 84 and 64 procedures, respectively, and surgeon C (10 surgeons for 45 patients). RESULTS: Cardiopulmonary bypass and clamp times were 176 ± 45 and 130 ± 24 minutes, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 2%. Postoperatively, 5% had mild and 0.5% had moderate AR. Kaplan-Meier's survival estimates, freedom from reoperation, and freedom from severe AR at 12 years were 97 ± 1, 93 ± 2, and 91 ± 3%, respectively. Age and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease appeared as risk factors for perioperative complications by univariate analysis. Age, coronary artery disease, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, but not surgeon, presented as risk factors by multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that if a David procedure is performed successfully, long-term durability may be excellent. They also suggest that good and durable results are possible even with limited experience of the operating surgeon.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement- management of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing aortic valve interventions: surgical compared to catheter-based approaches in hybrid procedures.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poorer outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR). For high-risk patients with complex CAD, combined transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) plus off-pump/minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass (OPCAB/MIDCAB) has been proposed. METHODS: A prospective registry analysis was performed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR+OP/MIDCAB with those undergoing TAVR plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical AVR plus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2008 and 2015 at a single site in Germany. RESULTS: 464 patients underwent SAVR+CABG, 50 underwent TAVR+OP/MIDCAB, and 112 underwent TAVR+PCI. The mean ages (p < 0.001) and logistic EuroSCOREs (p < 0.001) were similarly higher in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and TAVR+PCI patients compared to SAVR+CABG patients. Prior cardiac surgery was more common in TAVR+PCI than in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients (p < 0.001). Procedural times were shortest (p < 0.001), creatine kinase (muscle brain) levels least elevated (p < 0.001), pericardial tamponade least common (p = 0.027), and length of hospital stay shortest (p = 0.011) in TAVR+PCI, followed by TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients. In-hospital mortality was highest for TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients (18.0%) with comparable rates for TAVR+PCI and SAVR+CABG groups (9.0 and 6.9%; p = 0.009). Mortality by 12 months was more probable after TAVR+OP/MIDCAB (HR: 2.17, p = 0.002) and TAVR/PCI (HR: 1.63, p = 0.010) than after SAVR+CABG, with the same true of rehospitalisation (HR: 2.39, p = 0.003 and HR: 1.63, p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients share many characteristics with TAVR+PCI patients, with only slightly poorer long-term outcomes. In patients ineligible for SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI, hybrid interventions are reasonable second-line options.

Minimally Invasive versus Conventional LVAD-Implantation-An Analysis of the Literature.

This review aims to provide an overview on recent data to evaluate minimally invasive (MVAD) and conventional (CVAD) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted up to April 2017. A total of 183 studies were identified; 13 studies met inclusion criteria. The review revealed a trend toward a lower rate of transfusion, and shorter time for cardiopulmonary bypass, as well as a lower 30-day mortality rate for MVAD. This review indicates that there are possible benefits of minimally invasive LVAD implantation, even though the state of literature is poor.

Combined David and Frozen Elephant Trunk Procedure in Acute Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Valve sparing aortic root repair by reimplantation (David procedure) is an established technique in acute aortic dissection Stanford type A involving the aortic root. In DeBakey type I dissection, aortic arch replacement using the frozen elephant trunk (FET) was introduced to promote aortic remodeling of the downstream aorta. The combination of these two complex procedures represents a challenging surgical strategy and was considered too risky so far. METHODS: All patients with acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I undergoing valve sparing aortic root repair by reimplantation technique of David combined with extended aortic repair using the FET at our center between October 2009 and December 2016 were evaluated. Outcomes are compared with patients who underwent prosthetic aortic root replacement and FET for aortic dissection in the same timeframe. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients received combined David and FET procedure, while 20 patients received prosthetic aortic root replacement and FET procedure. Thirty-day mortality was 10.7% (n = 3) for the David group and 20% (n = 4) for the root replacement group (p = 0.43). Postoperative echocardiographic control revealed an excellent aortic valve function with regurgitation grade 0° or maximum grade I° and a mean gradient of 4.3 ± 2.1 mm Hg in all patients in the David group versus 7.2 ± 2.4 mm Hg in the aortic root replacement group, p = 0.003. Computed tomography angiography scan showed positive aortic remodeling in all but three patients (91.9%). Mid-term follow-up survival was 82.1% in the David group and 68.4% in the root replacement group, p = 0.28. There was no need for reintervention at the root or descending aorta. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous application of the David and FET procedure in patients with acute aortic dissection is safe and feasible in experienced hands as compared with standard aortic root replacement plus FET. The mid-term outcomes are encouraging and noninferior to conventional surgery results.

Expanding Surgical Opportunities: Endoscopic Harvesting of the Vena Saphena Parva in Supine Position.

The small saphenous vein (SSV) has proved to be a valid graft option for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), if other grafts are absent or unsuitable. Beside the described open technique we herein present our approach to endoscopic harvesting in supine position in seven patients. Harvesting was successful in six patients. Mean skin-to-skin time was 29.8 minutes. There were no infections or neurological deficits and the intraoperatively measured graft flow was excellent according to mean flow and low pulsatility index. Therefore, endoscopic harvesting of the SSV extends surgical opportunities not only in CABG, but also in surgery of peripheral artery disease.

Conventional versus Transapical Aortic Valve Replacement: Is It Time for Shift in Indications?

Background The incidence of degenerative aortic valve diseases has increased along with the life expectancy of our population. Although conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the gold standard for symptomatic aortic stenosis, transcatheter procedures have proven to be a valid therapeutic option in high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare these procedures in a high-risk cohort. Methods We retrospectively analyzed all symptomatic (dyspnea or angina) high-risk patients (logistic EuroSCORE ≥ 15%) fulfilling the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) indications. Most of the AVR patients (n = 180) were operated on before the implementation of TAVI. All TAVI procedures (n = 127) were performed transapically (TA). After matching for age, logistic EuroSCORE, and left ventricular ejection fraction, 82 pairs of patients were evaluated. Results When comparing AVR with TA-TAVI, there was no difference between groups in survival after 1 year (Kaplan-Meier analysis, 81.1% [95% CI: 72.5-89.7%] vs. 75.8% [95% CI: 66.2-75.9%], Log tank p = 0.660) and the complication rates (n for AVR vs. TA-TAVI: stroke, 2 vs. 0, p = 0.580; acute renal insufficiency, 8 vs. 12, p = 0.340; atrial fibrillation, 24 vs. 26, p = 0.813; pacemaker implantation, 4 vs. 4, p > 0.999). In addition, quality of life did not differ between groups. Patients in the TA-TAVI group had lower mean valvular gradients postoperatively compared with the AVR group (14.6 ± 6.6 vs. 10.2 ± 4.9 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Conclusion For high-risk patients, the TAVI procedure is comparable with conventional AVR, but is not advantageous. These results do not support the expansion of TAVI to low- or intermediate-risk patients.

Quadruple Valve Reoperation after the Ross Procedure.

Reoperations after the Ross procedure are rare, with autograft as well as homograft failure being the dominant causes for redo cardiac procedures. Due to increasing experience with valve-sparing aortic valve procedures, more valves can be preserved during redo surgery. Herein are reported the details of a patient who underwent quadruple valve reoperation comprising redo with a reconstructive approach after the short-term failure of pulmonary autograft and homograft with concomitant mitral and tricuspid regurgitation.

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Replacement and Transfemoral Aortic Valve Implantation.

The case is reported of a symptomatic elderly patient with severe mitral regurgitation, severe aortic valve stenosis, and coronary heart disease. The coronary artery disease had been interventionally treated four years previously with stent implantation into the right coronary artery. Published studies have shown that a combination of mitral and aortic valve surgery is associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality and morbidity, particularly in elderly patients. In the present patient, both valvular malformations were successfully treated with a single-step interdisciplinary approach, namely an initial surgical mitral valve replacement followed by transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Results and Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive Ross Procedure.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Based on superior long-term results, an increasing interest in the Ross procedure for young adult patients can be observed. After the first publication of this challenging procedure through a minimally invasive access, this operation has become an alternative to conventional sternotomy at the authors' department. This analysis compares the results and quality of life of the conventional and the minimally invasive Ross procedures. METHODS: By April 2013, a total of 136 patients had undergone the Ross procedure at the authors' institution. Preoperative parameters did not differ between the conventional group (C-group; n = 58; mean age 49 years) and the minimally invasive group (M-group; n = 78; mean age 50 years). Only the aortic cross-clamp time was longer for the M-group (151 versus 140 min). RESULTS: One C-group patient died on the day of operation. Consecutively, survival was 99% for the follow up period of 1,093 ± 601 days. Valve-related reoperations were necessary for four patients. One C-group patient developed a distal pulmonary stenosis due to fibrotic scar tissue. Two M-group patients showed fistulas after early endocarditis, but the native valves could be preserved in these cases. One C-group patient with recurrent severe aortic regurgitation showed holes in two of three cusps. The SF-36 questionnaire detected better physical parameters (physical function, physical role function) for patients after minimally invasive access. CONCLUSION: The minimally invasive Ross procedure allows the same excellent clinical outcome as the conventional technique. However, the physical quality of life is better with the minimally invasive procedure, in addition to an improved cosmetic result.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients at Extremely High Risk of Perioperative Mortality.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Transcatheter procedures are considered the therapy of choice for high-risk patients who are not eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement. Although its utility is debated, the logistic EuroSCORE I is still the most frequently used risk calculator for cardiac surgery in Europe, and was used in the present study to identify patients with an extremely high risk of predicted perioperative mortality. METHODS: This single-centre study included 319 consecutive patients who underwent transapical or transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) between September 2008 and December 2012. Combined hybrid procedures and transfemoral TAVI patients were excluded. Those patients predicted to have an excessively high risk of perioperative mortality (EuroSCORE >40%, n = 90) were compared to those with a lower calculated risk (EuroSCORE <40%, n = 229) with respect to perioperative complications, short-term-mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was 12.2% (n = 11) in the extremely high-risk group, and 6.6% (n = 15) in the lower-risk group (p = 0.08). There were no significant differences in the stroke rate (3.3% versus 0.4%, p = 0.07) or the incidence of acute kidney injury stage 3 (11.1% versus 5.2%, p = 0.32). The establishment of cardiopulmonary bypass (3.9% versus 11.1%, p = 0.02), conversion to sternotomy (1.3% versus 5.6%, p = 0.04), mean ventilation time (15.2 h versus 43.5 h, p = 0.007) and length of intensive care unit stay (2.9 days versus 6.8 days, p <0.001) were all significantly lower in the lower-risk group. CONCLUSION: The data acquired verified that TAVI is a safe procedure, even in patients with an extremely high predicted risk of perioperative mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Furthermore, the analysis substantiated the need for individualized risk evaluation.

Age-related reoperation rate after the Ross procedure: a report from the German Ross Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: An increasing number of young adult patients are choosing bioprostheses for aortic valve replacement (AVR). In this context, the Ross operation deserves renewed consideration as an alternative biological substitute. After both the Ross procedure and bioprosthetic AVR, reoperation rates remain a concern and may be related to age at surgery. Herein are reported details of freedom from reoperation after the Ross procedure for different age groups. METHODS: The reoperation rates of 1,925 patients (1,444 males, 481 females; mean age 41.2 ± 15.3 years) from the German Ross registry with a mean follow up of 7.4 ± 4.7 years (range: 0.00-18.51 years; total 12,866.6 patient-years) were allocated to three age groups: group I < 40 years; group II 40-60 years; and group III > 60 years. RESULTS: At 10 years (respectively 15 years) of follow up, freedom from reoperation was 86% (76%) in group I, 93% (85%) in group II, and 89% (83%) in group III. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that, at least during the first 10 and 15 years after AVR, the Ross procedure provides a significantly lower reoperation rate in young adult and middle-aged patients aged < 60 years. This information may be of interest to the patients' or physicians' decision-making for aortic valve surgery.

Minimally invasive versus conventional extracorporeal circulation in minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MECC) technology was applied predominantly in coronary surgery. Data regarding the application of MECC in minimally invasive valve surgery are missing largely. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated minimally invasive mitral or aortic valve procedures were allocated either to conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) group (n = 63) or MECC group (n = 105), and their prospectively generated data were analyzed. RESULTS: Demographic data were comparable between the groups regarding age (CECC vs. MECC: 71.0 ± 7.5 vs. 66.2 ± 10.1 years, p = 0.091) and logistic EuroSCORE I (6.2 ± 2.5 vs. 5.4 ± 3.0, p = 0.707). Hospital mortality was one patient in each group (1.6 vs. 1.0%, p = 0.688). The levels of leukocytes were lower in the MECC group (11.6 ± 3.2 vs. 9.4 ± 4.3 109/L, p = 0.040). Levels of platelets (137.2 ± 45.5 vs. 152.4 ± 50.3 109/L, p = 0.015) and hemoglobin (103.3 ± 11.3 vs. 107.3 ± 14.7 g/L, p = 0.017) were higher in the MECC group. Renal function was better preserved (creatinine: 1.1 ± 0.4 vs. 0.9 ± 0.2 mg/dL, p = 0.019). We were able to validate shorter time of postoperative ventilation (9.5 ± 15.1 vs. 6.3 ± 3.4 h, p = 0.054) as well as significantly shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (1.8 ± 1.3 vs. 1.2 ± 1.0 d, p = 0.005) for MECC patients. The course of C-reactive protein did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: We were able to prove the feasibility of MECC even in minimally invasive performed mitral and aortic valve procedures. In addition, the use of MECC provides decreased platelet consumption and less hemodilution. The use of MECC in these selected patients lead to a shorter ventilation time and ICU stay.

Frozen elephant trunk versus conventional proximal repair of acute aortic dissection type I.

Objective: The extent of surgery and the role of the frozen elephant trunk (FET) for surgical repair of acute aortic dissection type I are still subjects of debate. The aim of the study is to evaluate the short- and long-term results of acute surgical repair of aortic dissection type I using the FET compared to standard proximal aortic repair. Methods: Between October 2009 and December 2016, 172 patients underwent emergent surgery for acute type I aortic dissection at our center. Of these, n = 72 received a FET procedure, while the other 100 patients received a conventional proximal aortic repair. Results were compared between the two surgery groups. The primary endpoints included 30-day rates of mortality and neurologic deficit and follow-up rates of mortality and aortic-related reintervention. Results: Demographic data were comparable between the groups, except for a higher proportion of men in the FET group (76.4% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.03). The median age was 62 years [IQR (20), p = 0.17], and the median log EuroSCORE was 38.6% [IQR (31.4), p = 0.21]. The mean follow-up time was 68.3 ± 33.8 months. Neither early (FET group 15.3% vs. proximal group 23.0%, p = 0.25) nor late (FET group 26.2% vs. proximal group 23.0%, p = 0.69) mortality showed significant differences between the groups. There were fewer strokes in the FET patients (FET group 2.8% vs. proximal group 11.0%, p = 0.04), and the rates of spinal cord injury were similar between the groups (FET group 4.2% vs. proximal group 2.0%, p = 0.41). Aortic-related reintervention rates did not differ between the groups (FET group 12.1% vs. proximal group 9.8%, p = 0.77). Conclusion: Emergent FET repair for acute aortic dissection type I is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. The benefits of the FET procedure in the long term remain unclear. Prolonged follow-up data are needed.

Hybrid total arterial minimally invasive off-pump coronary revascularization and percutaneous coronary intervention strategy for multivessel coronary artery disease: a cohort study with a median 11-year follow-up.

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a treatment approach that combines the benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) techniques such as minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) or minimally invasive multivessel CABG (MICS-CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for carefully selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MV CAD). The extant body of research primarily concentrates on the comparison of outcomes between HCR and CABG or PCI. Furthermore, HCR is defined primarily as MIDCAB and PCI. Given the various criteria for HCR identified in the current body of literature, as well as several hybrid revascularization techniques, our primary goal was to analyse the characteristics and track the development of HCR patients operated on in our centre (Robert Bosch Hospital) over both short and long periods of time. Additionally, we sought to validate the practical challenges that arise during the implementation of an HCR methodology. Methods: This cohort study included 138 patients with MV CAD who had an HCR approach in conjunction with isolated total arterial off-pump MICS-CABG or MIDCAB between 2007 and 2018 at Robert Bosch Hospital in Stuttgart. Data on major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE), defined as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization and stroke were gathered through a questionnaire. Long-term follow-up, with a mean duration of 8.7±0.3 years and a median duration of 11 years, was available for a significant majority of the patients (92.8%, n=128). Results: The average age was 69.6±11.2 years, with 79% being male. The mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score I additive (EuroSCORE I) additive was 7.6±10.2 and the mean SYNergy between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) Score I was 22.9±9.4. A total of 97 MIDCAB surgeries and 41 MICS-CABG procedures were performed without any instances of conversion to sternotomy or cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). A total of 70 patients, or 50.7% of the sample, received the planned PCI treatment. This percentage was substantially lower in the subgroup with chronic CAD, with just 27, equivalent to 39.1%. The observed 30-day death rate was 2.1% (3/138). During follow-up, 3 myocardial infarctions, 18 PCI repeats, no CABG, and 4 strokes occurred. From 128 followed-up patients, 28 died (21.9%), 7 of which were heart deaths (5.5%). Total MACCE was 36.7%. The survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 92% and 85% respectively. Patients who didn't get the planned PCI had a mean survival rate of 6.8-9.1 years, while those with completed hybrid treatment had a higher mean survival rate of 8.4-10.2 years. Conclusions: In selected individuals with MVCAD, current evidence suggests that HCR is a safe and effective coronary artery revascularization approach. After coronary bypass surgery, the attention going forward needs to be devoted toward the organization of the PCI step in the treatment process.

The impact of incomplete revascularization on survival in minimal invasive off-pump coronary artery surgery: a propensity score analysis of 1,149 cases.

Background: Minimally invasive concepts are increasingly influential in modern cardiac surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of completeness of revascularization on clinical outcomes and overall survival in minimally invasive, thoracoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive series of 1,149 patients who underwent minimally invasive off-pump CABG with single, double, or triple-vessel revascularization between 2007 and 2018. Of these patients, 185 (16.1%) had incomplete revascularization (IR) (group I), and 964 (83.9%) had complete revascularization (CR) (group C). We used gradient boosted propensity score estimation to account for possible confounding variables. Results: Median age was 69 years, interquartile range (IQR) 60-76 years, and median EuroSCORE II was 4, IQR 2-7. Of the 1,149 patients, 495 patients suffered from two vessel disease (VD) and 353 presented with three VD. Long-term median follow-up 5.58 (3.27-8.48) years was available for 1,089 patients (94.8%). The incidence of recurrent or persisting angina, myocardial infarction, redo-bypass surgery, and stroke during follow-up did not differ significantly between groups. During follow-up, there were 47 deaths in group I and 172 deaths in group C. The 1-, 3-, 5-, 8-, and 10-year unadjusted survival rates were 94%, 84%, 75%, 62%, and 51% for group I, and 97%, 94%, 88%, 77%, and 72% for group C, respectively (long-rank test P<0.001), favouring CR. Following risk adjustment the long-rank test P value for survival was 0.23. Conclusions: In minimally invasive coronary surgery, IR resulted in decreased long-term survival, but did not achieve statistical significance after risk adjustment. However, IR should only be used in carefully selected cases.