Long-term clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of catheter vs thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation using continuous cardiac monitoring: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) compared to thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) to treat patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) are not known. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term (36-month) clinical efficacy, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of SA and CA in LSPAF. METHODS: Participants were followed up for 3 years using implantable loop recorders and questionnaires to assess the change in quality of life. Intention-to-treat analyses were used to report the findings. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients with LSPAF treated, 104 (90.4%) completed 36-month follow-up [CA: n = 57 (95%); SA: n = 47 (85%)]. After a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs, 7 patients (12%) in the CA arm and 5 (11%) in the SA arm [hazard ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.83; P = .41] were free from atrial fibrillation/tachycardia (AF/AT) ≥30 seconds at 36 months. Thirty-three patients (58%) in the CA arm and 26 (55%) in the SA arm (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI 0.57-1.88; P = .91) had their AF/AT burden reduced by ≥75%. The overall impact on health-related quality of life was similar, with mean quality-adjusted life year estimates of 2.45 (95% CI 2.31-2.59) for CA and 2.32 (95% CI 2.13-2.52) for SA. Estimated costs were higher for SA (mean £24,682; 95% CI £21,746-£27,618) than for CA (mean £18,002; 95% CI £15,422-£20,581). CONCLUSION: In symptomatic LSPAF, CA and SA were equally effective at achieving arrhythmia outcomes (freedom from AF/AT ≥30 seconds and ≥75% burden reduction) after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs. However, SA is significantly more costly than CA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04280042.

Left Atrial Function Predicts Atrial Arrhythmia Recurrence Following Ablation of Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial (LA) function following catheter or surgical ablation of de-novo long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and its impact on AF recurrence was studied in patients participating in the CASA-AF trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: All patients underwent echocardiography preablation, 3 and 12 months post-ablation. LA structure and function were assessed by 2-dimensional volume and speckle tracking strain measurements of LA reservoir, conduit, and contractile strain. Left ventricular diastolic function was measured using transmitral Doppler filling velocities and myocardial tissue Doppler velocities to derive the e', E/e', and E/A ratios. Continuous rhythm monitoring was achieved using an implantable loop recorder. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients had echocardiographic data suitable for analysis. Their mean age was 63.6±9.7 years, 73.5% were male, had AF for 22.8±11.6 months, and had a mean LA maximum volume of 48.8±13.8 mL/m2. Thirty patients maintained sinus rhythm, and 53 developed AF recurrence. Ablation led to similar reductions in LA volumes at follow-up in both rhythm groups. However, higher LA emptying fraction (36.3±10.6% versus 27.9±9.9%; P<0.001), reservoir strain (22.6±8.5% versus 16.7±5.7%; P=0.001), and contractile strain (9.2±3.4% versus 5.6±2.5%; P<0.001) were noted in the sinus rhythm compared with AF recurrence group following ablation at 3 months. Diastolic function was better in the sinus rhythm compared with the AF recurrence group with an E/A ratio of 1.5±0.5 versus 2.2±1.2 (P<0.001) and left ventricular E/e' ratio of 8.0±2.1 versus 10.3±4.1 (P<0.001), respectively. LA contractile strain at 3 months was the only independent predictor of AF recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Following ablation for long-standing persistent AF, improvement in LA function was greater in those who maintained sinus rhythm. LA contractile strain at 3 months was the most important determinant of AF recurrence following ablation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02755688.

Consensus statement on aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy in the UK healthcare setting.

The wide uptake of anterior right thoracotomy (ART) as an approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been limited despite initial reports of its use in 1993. Compared with median sternotomy, and even ministernotomy, ART is considered to be less traumatic to the chest wall and to help facilitate quicker patient recovery. In this statement, a consensus agreement is outlined that describes the potential benefits of the ART AVR. The technical considerations that require specific attention are described and the initiation of an ART programme at a UK centre is recommended through simulation and/or use of specialist instruments in conventional cases. The use of soft tissue retractors, peripheral cannulation, modified aortic clamping and the use of intraoperative adjuncts, such as sutureless valves and/or automated knot fasteners, are important to consider in order to circumvent the challenges of minimal the altered exposure via an ART.A coordinated team-based approach that encourages ownership of the programme by team members is critical. A designated proctor/mentor is also recommended. The organisation of structured training and simulation, as well as planning the initial cases are important steps to consider.

Current trends in minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement-Best available evidence.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement such as the reimplantation (David) procedure is becoming increasingly popular. Despite the fact that the procedure is technically more complex, long-term studies demonstrated that excellent clinical outcomes in selected patients with durable repair are achievable. Benefits of minimal access cardiac surgery have stimulated enthusiasm in the use of this access for valve-sparing aortic root replacement. METHODS: We have reviewed available literature on the topic of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) via minimally invasive access through upper hemisternotomy in an attempt to assess current trends and to recognize potential advantages of this technique. Patient selection and preoperative work-up play important role in performing minimally invasive David procedure safely. Surgical technique corresponds to the standard David procedure, with a few exceptions related to the minimal access, and is performed via upper ministernotomy. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Evidence from nonrandomized observational and comparative studies demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes of minimally invasive David procedure in selected patients with comparable perioperative mortality and outcomes to the conventional technique. To date, David procedure with a minimal access technique has been performed in carefully selected patients. We believe it could be particularly beneficial to provide younger patients (Marfan syndrome and bicuspid aortic valve) with minimally invasive David procedure as it can allow faster recovery with improved cosmesis with excellent outcomes. A decision to perform minimally invasive David procedure should be individualized to each patient and based on the experience of the team. Further large prospective randomized studies with long-term follow-up are still needed to confirm durability of minimal access technique.

The results of cardiac surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years: a propensity weighted study of outcomes at six months.

OBJECTIVES: In addition to excess mortality due to COVID-19, the pandemic has been characterised by excess mortality due to non-COVID diagnoses and consistent reports of patients delaying seeking medical treatment. This study seeks to compare the outcomes of cardiac surgery during and before the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Our institutional database was interrogated retrospectively to identify all patients undergoing one of three index procedures during the first six months of the pandemic and the corresponding epochs of the previous five years. SETTING: A regional cardiothoracic centre. PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing surgery during weeks #13-37, 2015-2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Propensity score weighted analysis was employed to compare the incidence of major complications (stroke, renal failure, re-ventilation), 30-day mortality, six month survival and length of hospital stay between the two groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.27-2.20], p = 0.6211), 6-month survival (HR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.44-2.01], p = 0.8809) and duration of stay (SHR = 1.00 (95% CI 0.90-1.12), p = 0.959) between the two eras. There were no differences in the incidence of major complications (weighted chi-square test: renal failure: p = 0.923, stroke: p = 0.991, new respiratory failure: p = 0.856). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac surgery is as safe now as in the previous five years. Concerns over the transmission of COVID-19 in hospital are understandable but patients should be encouraged not to delay seeking medical attention. All involved in healthcare and the wider public should be reassured by these findings.

Long-term survival after xenograft versus homograft aortic root replacement: Results from a prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to investigate the long-term survival of patients undergoing xenograft versus homograft full root aortic valve replacement. METHODS: A total of 166 patients requiring aortic valve surgery were randomized to undergo the Freestyle (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) bioprosthesis (N = 90) or a homograft (N = 76) full root aortic valve replacement between 1997 and 2005 in a single institution. Six patients randomly assigned to the homograft crossed over to the Freestyle bioprosthesis because of the unavailability of suitably sized homografts. All surgeons were required to adhere to the standard surgical technique for homograft root implantation previously described. Follow-up was 98.5% complete. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 65 ± 8 years. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with root aortic valve replacement in 76 of 166 patients (46%, P = not significant between groups), and overall hospital mortality was 4.8% (8/166, P = not significant between groups). Median follow-up was 13.8 years (range, 0-21.8 years; 2033 patient-years). The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival between the 2 arms at 5, 10, and 15 years. Twenty-year survival was 28.3% ± 5% for the Freestyle group versus 25.1% ± 5.7% for the homograft group (P = .90), which was comparable to the age- and sex-matched UK general population. The freedom from aortic valve reoperation at 20 years was comparable for the Freestyle group versus the homograft group (67.9% ± 8.8% vs 67.2% ± 10.3%, respectively; P = .74). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to investigate the long-term survival of xenograft versus homograft full root aortic valve replacement from a prospective randomized trial. The observed 20-year overall survival and freedom from aortic valve reoperation serve as a benchmark for future studies on interventions for aortic valve disease in the elderly.

A multicentre review comparing long term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery.

Background: Utilisation of the Endoscopic Vein Harvesting (EVH) technique has been increasing for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the last two decades. Some surgeons remain concerned about the long-term patency of the long saphenous vein harvested endoscopically compared to traditional Open Vein Harvesting (OVH). The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of the outcomes between EVH and OVH from three UK centres with 10 years follow-up. Methods: 27,024 patients underwent CABG with long saphenous vein harvested by EVH (n=13,794) or OVH (n=13,230) in three UK centres between 2007 and 2019. Propensity modelling was used to calculate the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weights (IPTW). The primary endpoint was mortality from all causes and secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and incidence of repeat coronary re-vascularisation for symptomatic patients. IPTW was used to balance the two intervention groups for baseline and preoperative co-morbidities. Results: Median follow-up time was 4.54 years for EVH and 6.00 years for OVH. Death from any cause occurred in 13.8% of the EVH group versus 20.8% in the OVH group over the follow-up period. The hazard ratio of death (EVH to OVH) was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.767, 0.884). Length of hospital stay was similar between the groups (p=0.86). Post-operative pulmonary complications were more common in EVH vs OVH (14.7% vs. 12.8%, p<0.001), but repeat coronary re-vascularisation was similar between the groups. Conclusions: This large retrospective multicentre analysis indicates that EVH has a lower risk of mortality compared with OVH during the follow-up period of the study. The observed benefits of EVH may outweigh the risks but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We hope this review gives confidence to other cardiac centres that offering an EVH approach to conduit harvesting does not affect long term patient outcomes.

Use of keyhole vein removal technique has been increasing for coronary artery bypass surgery for last two decades. However, some surgeons remain worried about the quality and long-term effect of the vein tube removed using keyhole method compared to traditional Open Vein Harvesting (OVH). The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of the outcomes between keyhole and OVH from three UK centres with 10 years follow-up. In total, 27,024 patients underwent coronary artery bypass surgery with long saphenous vein harvested by either keyhole (n=13,794) or OVH (n=13,230) over a period of 2007­2019. The median follow-up time was 4.54 years for keyhole method and 6.00 years for OVH. Death from any cause occurred in 13.8% of the keyhole group versus 20.8% in the OVH group over the follow-up period. In conclusion, the keyhole surgery survival is not as bad as we hypothesised.

BISMICS consensus statement: implementing a safe minimally invasive mitral programme in the UK healthcare setting.

Disseminating the practice of minimally invasive mitral surgery (mini-MVS) can be challenging, despite its original case reports a few decades ago. The penetration of this technology into clinical practice has been limited to centres of excellence, and mitral surgery in most general cardiothoracic centres remains to be conducted via sternotomy access as a first line. The process for the uptake of mini-MVS requires clearer guidance and standardisation for the processes involved in its implementation. In this statement, a consensus agreement is outlined that describes the benefits of mini-MVS, including reduced postoperative bleeding, reduced wound infection, enhanced recovery and patient satisfaction. Technical considerations require specific attention and can be introduced through simulation and/or use in conventional cases. Either endoballoon or aortic cross clamping is recommended, as well as femoral or central aortic cannulation, with the use of appropriate adjuncts and instruments. A coordinated team-based approach that encourages ownership of the programme by the team members is critical. A designated proctor is also recommended. The organisation of structured training and simulation, as well as planning the initial cases, is an important step to consider. The importance of pre-empting complications and dealing with adverse events is described, including re-exploration, conversion to sternotomy, unilateral pulmonary oedema and phrenic nerve injury. Accounting for both institutional and team considerations can effectively facilitate the introduction of a mini-MVS service. This involves simulation, team-based training, visits to specialist centres and involvement of a designated proctor to oversee the initial cases.

Catheter ablation vs. thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients' symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46-2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67-4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688.

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement through anterior right thoracotomy: Clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance.

BACKGROUND: The ease of implantation of the rapid deployment (RD) and sutureless valves has contributed to the adoption of anterior right thoracotomy (ART) approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR). AIM OF THE STUDY: This study evaluates the safety and haemodynamic performance of minimally invasive AVR through ART using the RD valves. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center review of a total of 50 consecutive patients who received RD-AVR through ART. RESULTS: The median age of patients was 75 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 69-80), and median Euroscore II was 5.1 (IQR: 2.4-7.5). ART RD-AVR was successfully performed in all cases with no conversion to sternotomy, paravalvular leaks or need for valve explantation. The mean size of the implanted valve was 23.2 ± 2.3 mm. In-hospital mortality was 2%. The mean and maximum pressure gradients across the aortic prosthesis were 10 mm Hg (IQR: 9-12) and 19 mm Hg (IQR: 16-23). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement can be safely performed through anterior right thoracotomy wit excellent haemodynamic performance and low postoperative complications rate.

Veno-arterial mechanical support as bridge to surgery in a patient with severe aortic regurgitation: a case report.

In this case report, we describe the successful application of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in a young patient with severe aortic regurgitation caused by a blocked mechanical valve. In this situation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation mechanical support was used as a bridge to the prompt replacement of the diseased valve. Aortic regurgitation is commonly recognized as a contraindication to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support because of the risk of ventricular distension, pulmonary oedema and further organ failure. However, in certain cases and with a rapid decision making, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation can be used as a bridge to treatment and recovery.

On-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for patients needing at least two grafts: comparative outcomes at 20 years.

OBJECTIVES: Despite evidence from several randomized controlled trials and observational studies validating short-term safety and efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), concerns persist regarding the impact of off-pump CABG on long-term survival and freedom from reintervention. This persistent scepticism regarding off-pump CABG prompted us to review our practice of CABG over the last 20 years with a view to comparing the impact of off-pump and on-pump CABG on short-term and long-term outcomes in a high-volume off-pump coronary surgery centre. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data from the Patients Analysis and Tracking System database (Dendrite Clinical Systems, Oxford, UK) for all isolated first-time CABG procedures with at least 2 grafts performed at our institution from January 1996 to September 2017. Over the study period, 5995 off-pump CABG and 4875 on-pump CABG were performed by surgeons with exclusive off-pump and on-pump practices, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression and the Cox model were used to investigate the effect of off-pump versus on-pump procedures on short-term outcomes and long-term survival. Propensity score matching was used to compare the 2 matched groups. RESULTS: Off-pump CABG was associated with a lower risk for 30-day mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.55; P < 0.001], reintubation/tracheostomy (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.72; P < 0.001) and re-exploration for bleeding (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37-0.62; P < 0.001). The benefit in terms of operative deaths from off-pump was significant in those with Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery logistic EuroSCORE >2 (interaction P = 0.04). When compared with on-pump CABG, off-pump CABG did not significantly reduce the risk of stroke (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.12; P = 0.20) and postoperative haemofiltration (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.20; P = 0.35). At the median follow-up of 12 years (interquartile range 6-17, max 21), off-pump CABG did not affect late survival [log rank P = 0.24; hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02] or the need for reintervention (log rank P = 0.12; HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.48). CONCLUSIONS: This large volume, single-centre study with the longest reported follow-up confirms that off-pump CABG performed by experienced surgeons, who perform only off-pump procedures in a high-volume off-pump coronary surgery centre, is associated with lower risk of operative deaths, fewer postoperative complications and similar 20-year survival and freedom from reintervention rates compared with on-pump CABG.

The role of extracorporeal life support in the management with severe idiopathic pulmonary artery hypertension undergoing lung transplantation: are those patients referred too late?

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary artery hypertension (iPAH) is a relatively minor indication for lung transplantation (LTx) with comparatively poorer outcomes. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in various forms is increasingly being used in the management of this entity. However, the data and experience with this therapy remains limited. We evaluated the role of ECLS in the management of severe iPAH patients as a bridge to LTx as well as post LTx support. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of iPAH patients that received LTx between January 2007 and May 2014 was performed. Early- and mid-term outcomes were analyzed for this patient cohort. Also, early and mid-term outcomes after LTx were compared to the control group of patients with other diagnoses using unadjusted analysis and 1:3 propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 321 LTx performed during the study period in our centre 15 patients had iPAH as a cause of end-stage lung disease. Four iPAH (27%) patients were bridged to LTx utilizing ECLS in the form of veno-arterial ECMO and extra-corporeal CO2 removal device, whereas 9 patients (60%) required ECLS support for primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after surgery. Patients with iPAH required more frequently on-pump LTx, both pre and post LTx ECLS, and had significantly lower pO2/FiO2 ratio at 24, 48 and 72 hours after LTx. Also iPAH patients had significantly longer ICU and hospital stay. Whereas the incidence of postoperative bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) and rejection was comparable to the control group, overall cumulative survival with up to 6 years follow-up was significantly poorer in the iPAH group. After propensity score matching, the results in terms of postoperative outcomes remained as in the unadjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: ECLS is an essential tool in the armamentarium of any lung transplant program treating iPAH with a potential of bridge patients to transplantation and to overcome graft dysfunction after LTx. Despite utilization of ECLS in the management of iPAH, the outcomes in terms of primary graft failure and survival remain poor compared to patients with other diagnoses.

Short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting is regarded as an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) through full sternotomy, particularly for patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending (LAD) artery stenosis deemed unsuitable for percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the technically demanding nature of the procedure and lack of long-term published outcomes have precluded its universal adoption. We report the comparative short-term outcomes and long-term survival of MIDCAB and conventional CABG through full sternotomy for grafting of isolated LAD. METHODS: From February 1996 to October 2017, a total of 668 patients underwent MIDCAB (n=508) and full sternotomy (n=160) CABG for isolated proximal LAD stenosis. Their data were prospectively entered into the institutional cardiac surgery database (Patients Analysis & Tracking System; Dendrite Clinical Systems, Ltd, Oxford, England, United Kingdom) and analyzed retrospectively. Information on patient deaths was obtained from the institutional database and the National General Register Office for all patients. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable with respect to preoperative demographics and risk profile. MIDCAB was associated with longer operative time (177±32 versus 141±12 min; P=0.003). The two groups did not significantly differ with regard to other complications including operative mortality. At a mean follow-up of 12.95±0.47 years, survival was also similar. CONCLUSIONS: This large single centre study with longest follow-up validates the status of MIDCAB as an effective strategy for grafting of LAD. However, it fails to show superiority of the minimally invasive approach compared to conventional CABG through full sternotomy.

Mid-to-long term mortality following surgical versus percutaneous coronary revascularization stratified according to stent subtype: An analysis of 6,682 patients with multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have largely been performed in the bare-metal stent (BMS) and first-generation drug eluting stent (F-DES) era. Second-generation DES (S-DES) have shown improved outcomes when compared to F-DES, but data comparing CABG with PCI using S-DES is limited. We compared mortality following CABG versus PCI for patients with multivessel disease and analyzed different stent types. METHODS: A total of 6,682 patients underwent multivessel revascularization at Harefield Hospital, UK. We stratified CABG patients into single arterial graft (SAG) or multiple arterial grafts (MAG); and PCI patients into BMS, F-DES or S-DES groups. We analyzed all-cause mortality at 5 years. RESULTS: 4,388 patients had CABG (n[SAG] = 3,358; n[MAG] = 1,030) and 2,294 patients had PCI (n[BMS] = 416; n[F-DES] = 752; n[S-DES] = 1,126). PCI had higher 5-year mortality with BMS (HR = 2.27, 95% CI:1.70-3.05, p<0.001); F-DES (HR = 1.52, 95% CI:1.14-2.01, p = 0.003); and S-DES (HR = 1.84, 95% CI:1.42-2.38, p<0.001). This was confirmed in inverse probability treatment weighted analyses. When adjusting for both measured and unmeasured factors using instrumental variable analyses, PCI had higher 5-year mortality with BMS (Δ = 15.5, 95% CI:3.6,27.5, p = 0.011) and FDES (Δ = 16.5, 95% CI:6.6,26.4, p<0.001), but had comparable mortality with CABG for PCI with SDES (Δ = 0.9, 95% CI: -9.6,7.9, p = 0.844), and when exclusively compared to CABG patients with SAG (Δ = 0.4, 95% CI: -8.0,8.7, p = 0.931) or MAG (Δ = 4.6, 95% CI: -0.4,9.6, p = 0.931). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis, when adjusting for measured and unmeasured confounding, PCI with SDES had comparable 5-year mortality when compared to CABG. This warrants evaluation in adequately-powered randomized controlled trials.

Catheter Ablation versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (CASA-AF): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is the commonest arrhythmia which raises the risk of heart failure, thromboembolic stroke, morbidity and death. Pharmacological treatments of this condition are focused on heart rate control, rhythm control and reduction in risk of stroke. Selective ablation of cardiac tissues resulting in isolation of areas causing atrial fibrillation is another treatment strategy which can be delivered by two minimally invasive interventions: percutaneous catheter ablation and thoracoscopic surgical ablation. The main purpose of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: Catheter Ablation versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (CASA-AF) is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial within three NHS tertiary cardiovascular centres specialising in treatment of atrial fibrillation. Eligible adults (n = 120) with symptomatic, long-standing, persistent atrial fibrillation will be randomly allocated to either catheter ablation or thoracoscopic ablation in a 1:1 ratio. Pre-determined lesion sets will be delivered in each treatment arm with confirmation of appropriate conduction block. All patients will have an implantable loop recorder (ILR) inserted subcutaneously immediately following ablation to enable continuous heart rhythm monitoring for at least 12 months. The devices will be programmed to detect episodes of atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia ≥ 30 s in duration. The patients will be followed for 12 months, completing appropriate clinical assessments and questionnaires every 3 months. The ILR data will be wirelessly transmitted daily and evaluated every month for the duration of the follow-up. The primary endpoint in the study is freedom from atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia at the end of the follow-up period. DISCUSSION: The CASA-AF Trial is a National Institute for Health Research-funded study that will provide first-class evidence on the comparative efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of thoracoscopic surgical ablation and conventional percutaneous catheter ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. In addition, the results of the trial will provide information on the effects on patients' quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN18250790 . Registered on 24 April 2015.

Catheter ablation vs electrophysiologically guided thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: The CASA-AF Study.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation (CA) outcomes for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) remain suboptimal. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) provides an alternative approach in this difficult to treat cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare electrophysiological (EP) guided thoracoscopic SA with percutaneous CA as the first-line strategy in the treatment of LSPAF. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with de novo symptomatic LSPAF were recruited. Twenty-six patients underwent electrophysiologically guided thoracoscopic SA. Conduction block was tested for all lesions intraoperatively by an independent electrophysiologist. In the CA group, 25 consecutive patients underwent stepwise left atrial (LA) ablation. The primary end point was single-procedure freedom from atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial tachycardia (AT) lasting >30 seconds without antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months. RESULTS: Single- and multiprocedure freedom from AF/AT was higher in the SA group than in the CA group: 19 of 26 patients (73%) vs 8 of 25 patients (32%) (P = .003) and 20 of 26 patients (77%) vs 15 of 25 patients (60%) (P = .19), respectively. Testing of the SA lesion set by an electrophysiologist increased the success rate in achieving acute conduction block by 19%. In the SA group, complications were experienced by 7 of 26 patients (27%) vs 2 of 25 patients (8%) in the CA group (P = .07). CONCLUSION: In LSPAF, meticulous electrophysiologically guided thoracoscopic SA as a first-line strategy may provide excellent single-procedure success rates as compared with those of CA, but there is an increased up-front risk of nonfatal complications.

Rapid resolution of Ortner's syndrome with giant left atrium after double-valve replacement surgery.

Hoarseness of voice due to recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy is an uncommon manifestation of cardiothoracic disease. Ortner's syndrome is hoarseness attributed to mechanical compression of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve in association with several cardiopulmonary disease states. We here describe a rare case of Ortner's syndrome developing in a 60-year-old woman with a giant left atrium in the context of rheumatic mitral valve stenosis. The remarkable resolution of her voice hoarseness within 1 week of valve replacement surgery has not been reported in similar cases to date.

Comparison of Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Using Internal Mammary Graft Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Isolated Proximal Left Anterior Descending Narrowing.

There are limited contemporary studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for isolated proximal left anterior descending (LAD) disease. Increasing stent length and decreasing stent diameters are associated with increased risk of restenosis and adverse outcomes after PCI. Whether these parameters influence outcomes when comparing CABG and PCI is unclear. We compared CABG and PCI in 3,473 patients who underwent revascularization for isolated proximal LAD disease from 2004 to 2015 at Harefield Hospital, UK; 3,078 patients (89%) had PCI and 384 patients had CABG (11%). We analyzed all-cause mortality at 3 years. The unadjusted mortality rates were similar (PCI vs CABG: 9.5% vs 7.0%, p = 0.109). PCI was associated with comparable mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 1.89, p = 0.593), even when stratified to bare-metal stents (HR 1.58, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.80, p = 0.121); first-generation drug-eluting stents (FDES; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02, p = 0.597); and second-generation DES (SDES; HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.82, p = 0.946). Stent diameters did not influence outcomes, but PCI was associated with higher mortality when stent length ≥30 mm (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.12 to 4.03, p = 0.022). There was a linear association between stent length and mortality, and for every 1-mm increase in stent length, the 3-year mortality increased by 0.32%. In conclusion, for patients with isolated proximal LAD disease, PCI and CABG were associated with similar mortality. Increasing stent length was progressively associated with worse outcomes with PCI. For longer segments of disease requiring stent lengths ≥30 mm, CABG may be associated with better outcomes.

How to Do It - Implantation Technique for Newer-Generation Sutureless/Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement.

'Sutureless' or rapid-deployment (RD) aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an emerging alternative to standard AVR in elderly high-risk surgical patients. Here, the authors describe their implantation technique for the newer-generation Edwards INTUITY-Elite® valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA), a balloon-expandable stented trileaflet bovine pericardial bioprosthesis that received CE Mark European approval in April 2014.