Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Root Surgery: Results of an Intermediate-Volume Center.

BACKGROUND: We evaluate the outcome of aortic root surgery via an upper J: -shaped mini-sternotomy (MS) versus full sternotomy (FS) in an intermediate-volume center. METHODS: Between November 2011 and February 2019, 94 consecutive patients underwent aortic root surgery: 62 (66%) patients were operated via a J: -shaped MS (group A) and 32 (34%) patients via FS (group B). The primary endpoints were mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE), and reoperation in a 2-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and patient's satisfaction with the procedural results. RESULTS: Valve sparing root replacement (David procedure) was performed in 13 (21%) of the MS and 7 (22%) of the FS patients. The Bentall procedure in MS versus FS was 49 (79%) versus 25 (78%), respectively. Both groups presented similar mean operation, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cross-clamp times. Postoperative bleeding was 534 ± 300 and 755 ± 402 mL (p = 0.01) in MS and FS, respectively, erythrocyte concentrate substitution was 3 ± 3 and 5.3 ± 4.8 (p = 0.018) in MS and FS, respectively, and pneumonia rates were 0 and 9.4% (p = 0.03) in MS and FS, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 0% in both groups, whereas MACCE was 1.6 and 3% (p = 0.45) in MS and FS, respectively. After 2 years, the mortality and MACCE were 4.6 and 9.5% (p = 0.11) and 4.6 and 0% (p = 0.66) in MS and FS, respectively. The number of patients who were satisfied with the surgical cosmetic results in groups A and B was 53 (85.4%) and 26 (81%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Aortic root surgery via MS is a safe alternative to FS even in an intermediate-volume center. It offers a shorter recovery time and similar midterm results.

Outcomes in Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Increased rates of postoperative left bundle branch block (LBBB) and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) frequently occur after implantation of rapid deployment valves. The impact of LBBB on follow-up outcomes remains controversial. So far, no data regarding long-term outcomes exist. AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of LBBB on postoperative outcomes after rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR). METHODS: A total of 620 consecutive patients without preexisting LBBB or PPI who underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2019 were included. New-onset LBBB was defined as any new LBBB that persisted at hospital discharge. The median follow-up time for clinical data was 1.7 years post-RDAVR. RESULTS: At discharge, new-onset LBBB was seen in 109 patients (17.5%). There were no differences between the LBBB groups and no-LBBB groups regarding baseline characteristics. At a median follow-up of 1.7 years, no difference was found between LBBB groups and no-LBBB groups concerning all-cause mortality (12.8 vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.53; p = 0.54). Nevertheless, new-onset LBBB was associated with significant higher pacemaker implantation rates at follow-up (10.1 vs. 6.3%; HR: 3.58; 95% CI: 1.89-6.81 p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After a median follow-up of 1.7 years, new-onset LBBB was not associated with increased mortality. Nevertheless, higher pacemaker implantation rates were observed in patients with new-onset LBBB after RDAVR.

Early-Term Results of Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement versus Standard Bioprosthesis Implantation Combined with Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic stenosis is highly prevalent among patients with concomitant coronary artery disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement with coronary artery bypass grafting is usually the treatment of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis and significant coronary disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome and hemodynamic results of the implantation of rapid-deployment valves (Rapid-Deployment Edwards Intuity Valve System [RDAVR]) versus conventional sutured valves (CSAVR) in combined surgery. METHODS: Between January 2012 and January 2017, 120 patients underwent replacement via RDAVR and 133 patients underwent replacement using CSAVR with concomitant coronary bypass grafting. Clinical and echocardiographic data were compared. RESULTS: The mean age was 76 ± 7 for RDAVR patients and 74 ± 6 years for CSAVR patients (p = 0.054); 48% in the RDAVR group were female versus 17% in the CSAVR group (p <0.002). Other characteristics such as diabetes mellitus, body-mass index, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nicotine consumption, and extracardiac arteriopathy were similar. Coronary three-vessel disease was more common in the RDAVR group (42.5 vs. 27.8%, p = 0.017). Both mean EuroSCORE II (6.6 ± 5.4 vs. 4.3 ± 3.0, p = 0.001) and STS score (5.4 ± 4.4 vs. 3.4 ± 2.4, p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the RDAVR group. Mean cross-clamp time (82 ± 25 vs. 100 ± 30 minutes, p < 0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (119 ± 38 vs. 147 ± 53 minutes, p < 0.001) were shorter with RDAVR. The mean number of bypass grafts, length of hospital and ICU stays, and mechanical ventilation time were not statistically significant different. Hospital mortality was 2.5% for RDAVR and 9.7% for CSAVR (p = 0.019). There was a similar rate of stroke (5.8 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.990) and postoperative delirium (14.1 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.728). Mean gradients were 8.2 ± 4.1 mm Hg in the RDAVR group vs. 11.3 ± 4.6 mm Hg in the CSAVR group (p = 0.001) at discharge. CONCLUSION: RDAVR combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) can be performed extremely safely. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times can be significantly reduced with rapid deployment aortic valve system in the scenario of combined CABG. RDAVR resulted in lower gradients than CSAVR in patients implanted with prostheses of the same size.

Single-Center Outcomes with Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid-deployment valves can reduce procedural times and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery. In our institution, more than 500 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: A total of 510 patients underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2017, of whom 270 patients underwent isolated AVR and 240 underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The cumulative follow-up time was 1,444 patient-years, the median follow-up time 2.8 years, respectively RESULTS: An early all-cause mortality of 3.5% (n = 18) was seen with a cumulative survival of 91.9 ± 2.2% after 12 months. Mean cross-clamp times were 37 ± 19 minutes for isolated AVR and 93 ± 29 minutes for AVR with concomitant procedures. The rate of new pacemaker implantation was 7.8% (n = 40). No case of structural degeneration occurred in the follow-up. Three (0.6%) cases of endocarditis were registered. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid deployment AVR can be performed safely with low complication rates and good hemodynamic results. Therefore, the relevance in aortic valve surgery can be stressed.

Oversized versus Non-oversized Prosthesis: Midterm Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using SAPIEN 3 Valve.

BACKGROUND: A certain degree of prosthesis oversizing is recommended for the SAPIEN 3 (S3; Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Irvine, California, United States) to ensure device success. We aimed to investigate midterm outcomes in patients who received oversized (OS) S3 valve after transapical-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR). METHODS: Out of 122 patients with aortic stenosis who underwent TA-TAVR using S3 at our institution, 42 received OS prosthesis. We used computed tomography (CT) derived effective diameter to assess oversizing. We defined oversizing if the labeled diameter of the selected valve for implantation was ≥2 mm bigger than the effective annulus diameter calculated by the annulus area. We conducted a midterm follow-up and compared the OS cohort with the non-OS (nOS) cohort. RESULTS: The study groups showed similar risk score and age (STS [Society of Thoracic Surgery] score: 5.4 ± 3; mean age: 80.7 ± 5.7). The 30-day mortality was 7.1% in OS versus 2.4% in nOS. The 30-day all-stroke was 2.4% in OS versus 0% in nOS. The 1- and 3-year all-cause mortality were 28.5 and 42.8% in OS versus 21.9 and 26.8% in nOS, respectively. Midterm freedom from death and from cardiocerebral events was similar in both groups. Moderate/severe paravalvular leakage occurred in 0% in OS versus 5.4% in nOS. The postdilation rate was 7.1% in OS versus 15.3% in nOS. The rate of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was 15.7% in OS versus 9.3% in nOS. The STS score was detected as an independent predictor of mortality. CONCLUSION: Oversizing reduces the risk of device failure and intraprocedural postdilation but increases the risk of PPI. Early and midterm morbidity and mortality after OS and nOS with S3 are comparable.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the SAPIEN 3 valve versus surgical aortic valve replacement using the rapid deployment INTUITY valve: Midterm outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Little data have been published on the midterm effect of transapical/transfemoral-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-/TF-TAVR) using the Edwards SAPIEN 3 valve (S3). We aimed to compare the outcomes after TA-/TF-TAVR utilizing the S3 (TA-/TF-S3) valve with those after surgical aortic valve replacement utilizing the rapid deployment Edwards INTUITY valve (RD-SAVR). METHODS: Between March 2012 and April 2018, 122 patients with aortic stenosis underwent TA-S3, 77 patients underwent TF-S3 and 182 patients underwent RD-SAVR through partial sternotomy at our institution. We conducted clinical and echocardiographic midterm follow-ups. The primary outcomes of the study were the incidence of new pacemakers permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), the occurrence of paravalvular leakage (PVL) and the hemodynamic performance of the valves. RESULTS: All study groups were at intermediate surgical risk. The 30-day all-cause mortality and stroke rates in the TA-S3, TF-S3, and RD-SAVR groups were 4.1% and 1.6%, 3.9% and 2.6%, and 3.8% and 2.2%, respectively. The RD-SAVR group had significantly smaller PVL and PPI rates than did the TA-/TF-S3 group (p < .0001). At the discharge, the one-year postprocedure mean gradients were 9 ± 5.1/10 ± 4.5 mmHg, 11 ± 4.1/12 ± 3.8 mmHg, and 10.1 ± 4.3/10.4 ± 2.6 mmHg in the TA-S3, TF-S3, and RD-SAVR groups, respectively. Midterm valve thrombosis, Re-TAVR/SVAR were low and similar among the study groups, whereas endocarditis was higher in the TAVR group. CONCLUSION: RD-SAVR was superior to TA-/TF-S3 in the PVL and PPI rates. We observed similar early outcomes and valve hemodynamics. The endocarditis was higher in the TAVR group.

Early Results after Aortic Valve Replacement Using Last Generation Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve.

INTRODUCTION: Few data are available about the newest generation surgical bioprosthesis. We aimed to evaluate early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA). METHODS: Between July 2018 and April 2021, 80 patients underwent aortic valve replacement receiving the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve at our institution. Primary outcomes were the composite of early mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes were hemodynamic performances of the valve, paravalvular leakage, and new pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 60.6 ± 8.3 years. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 2.9 ± 1.7%. In 43.7% of the patients, concomitant surgery was performed. The in-hospital mortality, all-stroke, and myocardial infarction rates were 2.5%, 1.2%, and 1.2%, respectively. No valve was explanted and no redo was performed. The mean postoperative trans-prosthetic gradient at discharge was 10.2 ± 4.1 mm Hg. There was no need for new pacemaker implantation. We registered only two cases with minimal (trace) paravalvular leakage. CONCLUSION: The use of the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve in a young, low-risk population is safe and associated with very good early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes.

Intermediate Outcomes after Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement in Multiple Valve Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Multiple valve surgery is associated with significant higher operative risks. Reduced cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times in multiple valve surgery may potentially be beneficial as they can be considered independent risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality following cardiac surgery. We report first intermediate outcomes of the Edwards Intuity valve system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, United States) in combined procedures METHODS: Fifty-eight patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with concomitant mitral valve surgery between January 2014 and November 2017 in our institution. The valve was assessed echocardiographically after 12 months. The median follow-up was 1.7 years with a cumulative follow-up time of 115.3 patient years. RESULTS: The mean age was 73.5 ± 6.2 years and the mean logistic Euroscore was 11.6 ± 3.1%. Concomitant mitral valve repair was performed in 43 cases (74.1%), and mitral valve replacement in 15 cases (19.0%). The mean cross-clamp time was 93 ± 21 minutes along with a mean bypass time of 118 ± 24 minutes. All-cause mortality after 30 days was 8.6%. Overall actuarial survival at 1 year was 87.2 ± 4.5% and after 2 years 82.8 ± 5.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in multiple valve surgery can be performed safely with good intermediate outcomes in elderly, high-risk patients.

Aortic Valve Replacement with the Labcor TLPB Supra™ Porcine Bioprosthesis: Intermediate Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The Labcor TBLP Supra™ prosthesis is a second-generation tissue valve that has evolved from the Labcor TBLP™ prosthesis, first introduced in 1984. The Supra prosthesis is a triple-composite porcine valve, with no specific anticalcification treatment being used in its production other than standard tissue fixation with 0.4% glutaraldehyde. To date, more than 100,000 Supra valves have been implanted, mainly in South America. Despite this remarkably high number of implants, only marginal data exist concerning durability and safety issues. Hence, the study aim was to analyze short-term and intermediate outcomes relating to the clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Supra valve, as well as complication rates METHODS: A follow up study was initiated to evaluate outcomes and durability of the Labcor Supra prosthesis. Between September 2004 and October 2010, a total of 331 patients (mean age 75.8 ± 7.2 years; mean logistic EuroSCORE 8.5 ± 2.3%) underwent aortic valve replacement using the Supra porcine bioprosthesis. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was 4.8% (n = 16). The overall actuarial five-year survival was 72.3 ± 4.9%, and eight-year survival was 60.4 ± 5.6%. Actuarial freedom from reoperation was 96.3 ± 2.4% after five years, and 92.5 ± 3.5% after eight years. Actuarial freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) was 99.7 ± 0.3% at five years, and 97.2 ± 0.8% at eight years; actuarial freedom from thromboembolism was 97.5 ± 1.0% and 95.7 ± 1.6% at these times. Actuarial freedom from event rates for endocarditis were 99.5 ± 0.3% and 96.8 ± 0.6%, and 96.1 ± 0.9% and 93.0 ± 1.4% for reoperation CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found of increased rates of SVD. All parameters studied were comparable to those examined for other second-generation porcine prostheses. Further long-term follow up investigations are required however, for the final judgment of this prosthesis.

48 h cessation of mechanical ventilation during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe trauma: a case report.

A 32-year-old motorcyclist who was hit by a tram subsequently presented with blunt force thoracic trauma, a pelvic fracture and a penetrating injury to the left lower extremity. Coagulopathy persisted following surgery of the leg and pelvic vascular intervention. Bedside thoracotomy was performed to treat pneumothorax and pneumopericardium. Severe hypoxemia secondary to lung failure ensued, which required venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) support. On the third day after the trauma, ultra-protective mechanical ventilation was not possible due to non-existent lung compliance; thus, the ventilator was disconnected, and the T-piece was connected to the blocked tracheal tube left in the airway. Gas exchange occurred via VV ECMO separately. After 48 h of cessation of ventilator support, the patient was weaned from sedation. At this time, respiratory effort was observed, and assisted ventilation was initiated. The patient ultimately recovered and experienced an excellent outcome. The clinical significance of zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP) and the complete cessation of open lung strategy during ECMO remains controversial. In cases of reduced lung compliance, if VV ECMO can facilitate adequate gas exchange, the discontinuation of ventilation is an option that can be used to prevent ventilator-induced lung damage and to allow the lungs to rest. VV ECMO is feasible as lung support with no mechanical ventilation in case of severe lung failure after major trauma.