Surgical revision after percutaneous mitral valve repair by edge-to-edge device in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients scheduled for surgery after unsuccessful MitraClip® intervention present increasingly with multiple comorbidities, and they are often referred to the heart team to suggest the most appropriate intervention. The publication of successful results of initial patient cohorts treated with the MitraClip device has resulted in recruitment of more seriously ill patients, who otherwise would have been denied catheter-based/surgical treatment. There has been increasingly reports on conventional surgery after failed mitral valve repair with the MitraClip device. However, data on such procedures remain scarce and mostly focused on individual case studies. The inevitable increase in use of MitraClip, however, will raise the number of patients in need of surgery post MitraClip, making it imperative for surgeons to understand challenges and outcome data related with surgery in this patient cohort. We present our long-term institutional experience with surgery after MitraClip intervention in highest risk patients. METHODS: Eighteen patients underwent surgery of the mitral valve at our Institution between January 2015 and June 2020. These patients developed recurrent mitral regurgitation grade more than 2° at various intervals after MitraClip. Mitral valve repair was performed where possible and gross examination Valve/MitraClip were intra-operatively documented. Implanted MitraClip devices were analyzed histopathologically to evaluate the healing process and rule out inflammation. Regular patient follow-up was performed. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 74 (±9 years) and MitraClip implantation was performed at various tertiary institutions. Sixteen out of eighteen (16/18) patients received mitral valve replacement, whereas the remaining two patients received mitral valve repair and extracorporal membrane oxygenation, respectively. Four patients died of sepsis and intractable multi organ failure in-hospital. The remaining patients were discharged alive out of hospital to different rehabilitation centers. Follow-up was complete in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery is demanding when patients require surgery for persistent or recurrent mitral regurgitation after MitraClip therapy and can be successfully implemented as a possible therapy option for selective cases as an interdisciplinary approach despite calculated high perioperative mortality risk. These patients should not be denied surgery outright.

Genome-wide association study of myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, acute stroke, acute kidney injury and delirium after cardiac surgery - a sub-analysis of the RIPHeart-Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was the identification of genetic variants associated with postoperative complications after cardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial (RIPHeart). We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) in 1170 patients of both genders (871 males, 299 females) from the RIPHeart-Study cohort. Patients undergoing non-emergent cardiac surgery were included. Primary endpoint comprises a binary composite complication rate covering atrial fibrillation, delirium, non-fatal myocardial infarction, acute renal failure and/or any new stroke until hospital discharge with a maximum of fourteen days after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 547,644 genotyped markers were available for analysis. Following quality control and adjustment for clinical covariate, one SNP reached genome-wide significance (PHLPP2, rs78064607, p = 3.77 × 10- 8) and 139 (adjusted for all other outcomes) SNPs showed promising association with p < 1 × 10- 5 from the GWAS. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several potential loci, in particular PHLPP2, BBS9, RyR2, DUSP4 and HSPA8, associated with new-onset of atrial fibrillation, delirium, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury and stroke after cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01067703, prospectively registered on 11 Feb 2010.

A Multicenter Trial of Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Heart Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is reported to reduce biomarkers of ischemic and reperfusion injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, but uncertainty about clinical outcomes remains. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving adults who were scheduled for elective cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass under total anesthesia with intravenous propofol. The trial compared upper-limb RIPC with a sham intervention. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or acute renal failure up to the time of hospital discharge. Secondary end points included the occurrence of any individual component of the primary end point by day 90. RESULTS: A total of 1403 patients underwent randomization. The full analysis set comprised 1385 patients (692 in the RIPC group and 693 in the sham-RIPC group). There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of the composite primary end point (99 patients [14.3%] in the RIPC group and 101 [14.6%] in the sham-RIPC group, P=0.89) or of any of the individual components: death (9 patients [1.3%] and 4 [0.6%], respectively; P=0.21), myocardial infarction (47 [6.8%] and 63 [9.1%], P=0.12), stroke (14 [2.0%] and 15 [2.2%], P=0.79), and acute renal failure (42 [6.1%] and 35 [5.1%], P=0.45). The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis. No treatment effect was found in any subgroup analysis. No significant differences between the RIPC group and the sham-RIPC group were seen in the level of troponin release, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of stay in the intensive care unit or the hospital, new onset of atrial fibrillation, and the incidence of postoperative delirium. No RIPC-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Upper-limb RIPC performed while patients were under propofol-induced anesthesia did not show a relevant benefit among patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; RIPHeart ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01067703.).

Remote ischaemic preconditioning for heart surgery. The study design for a multi-center randomized double-blinded controlled clinical trial--the RIPHeart-Study.

AIMS: Transient ischaemia of non-vital tissue has been shown to enhance the tolerance of remote organs to cope with a subsequent prolonged ischaemic event in a number of clinical conditions, a phenomenon known as remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC). However, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of RIPC in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The purpose of this report is to describe the design and methods used in the "Remote Ischaemic Preconditioning for Heart Surgery (RIPHeart)-Study". METHODS: We are conducting a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicentre, controlled trial including 2070 adult cardiac surgical patients. All types of surgery in which cardiopulmonary bypass is used will be included. Patients will be randomized either to the RIPC group receiving four 5 min cycles of transient upper limb ischaemia/reperfusion or to the control group receiving four cycles of blood pressure cuff inflation/deflation at a dummy arm. The primary endpoint is a composite outcome (all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, any new stroke, and/or acute renal failure) until hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: The RIPHeart-Study is a multicentre trial to determine whether RIPC may improve clinical outcome in cardiac surgical patients.

RIPHeart (Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Heart Surgery) Study: Myocardial Dysfunction, Postoperative Neurocognitive Dysfunction, and 1 Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) has been suggested to protect against certain forms of organ injury after cardiac surgery. Previously, we reported the main results of RIPHeart (Remote Ischemic Preconditioning for Heart Surgery) Study, a multicenter trial randomizing 1403 cardiac surgery patients receiving either RIPC or sham-RIPC. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this follow-up paper, we present 1-year follow-up of the composite primary end point and its individual components (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and acute renal failure), in a sub-group of patients, intraoperative myocardial dysfunction assessed by transesophageal echocardiography and the incidence of postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction 5 to 7 days and 3 months after surgery. RIPC neither showed any beneficial effect on the 1-year composite primary end point (RIPC versus sham-RIPC 16.4% versus 16.9%) and its individual components (all-cause mortality [3.4% versus 2.5%], myocardial infarction [7.0% versus 9.4%], stroke [2.2% versus 3.1%], acute renal failure [7.0% versus 5.7%]) nor improved intraoperative myocardial dysfunction or incidence of postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction 5 to 7 days (67 [47.5%] versus 71 [53.8%] patients) and 3 months after surgery (17 [27.9%] versus 18 [27.7%] patients), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to our main study, RIPC had no effect on intraoperative myocardial dysfunction, neurocognitive function and long-term outcome in cardiac surgery patients undergoing propofol anesthesia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01067703.