Review of patients discharged post thoracic surgery with chest drain in situ and nurse-based follow-up clinic.

Persistent air leak and prolonged drainage are recognized complications of thoracic surgery, increasing hospital stay and costs. Patients can be discharged with a chest drain and followed up in a nurse-led clinic. We reviewed such patients and the rate of readmission after discharge to assess the effectiveness of the drain follow up clinic. Retrospective review of our prospective database for 22 months (March 2019 to January 2021). Analysis focussed on indication and duration of chest drainage, complications, and readmission for any reason. 62 patients (representing 5% of all thoracic surgery patients) were discharged with a chest drain. Median age was 67 years (range 22-85 years), 24 females and 38 males. 52% underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, 27% had a thoracotomy, and 21% had bedside chest drain insertion. Following discharge, median duration of chest drainage was 11 days [interquartile range (IQR) 7-18.75 days]. Patients had 106 review episodes in the ward-based nurse-led clinic. Indication was prolonged air leak (71 %; 72 clinic reviews), persistent fluid drainage following empyema evacuation (16%; 24 clinic reviews) and persistent fluid drainage for simple effusion (13%; 10 clinic reviews). Median length of drain stay was 30 days (IQR 19.75-54 days) for empyema, 10 days (IQR 6-16 days) for air leak and 8 days (IQR 6.5-12 days) days for simple effusion. 9 patients required readmission (14.5%) and empyema had developed in 3 patients (4.8%). Patients discharged with a chest drain in place can be followed up in a dedicated ward-based nurse-led monitoring clinic for optimal quality of care.

Redo aortic valve replacement versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: a UK propensity-matched analysis.

This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicenter UK retrospective study of redo-AVR or valve-in-valve TAVI for patients referred for redo aortic valve intervention due to a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching was performed for confounding factors. From July 2005 to April 2021, 911 patients underwent redo-AVR and 411 patients underwent valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. The mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR versus 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including intra-aortic balloon pump support (p=0.02), early re-operation (p<0.001), arrhythmias (p<0.001), respiratory and neurological complications (p=0.02 and p=0.03) and multi-organ failure (p=0.01). The valve-in-valve TAVI group had a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay (p<0.001 for both). However, moderate aortic regurgitation at discharge and higher post-procedural gradients were more common after valve-in-valve TAVI (p<0.001 for both). Survival probabilities in patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital were similar after valve-in-valve TAVI and redo-AVR over the 6-year follow-up (log-rank p=0.26). In elderly patients with a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis, valve-in-valve TAVI provides better early outcomes as opposed to redo-AVR, although there was no difference in mid-term survival in patients successfully discharged from the hospital.

Is obesity associated with poorer outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery?

OBJECTIVES: High body mass index (BMI) makes minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) more challenging with some surgeons considering this a contraindication. We sought to determine whether this is because the outcomes are genuinely worse than those of non-obese patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing MIMVS ± concomitant procedures over an 8-year period. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and BMI ˂ 30 kg/m2, as per World Health Organization definitions. Baseline characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes and 5-year survival were compared. RESULTS: We identified 296 patients (BMI ≥30, n = 41, median 35.3, range 30-43.6; BMI <30, n = 255, median 26.2, range 17.6-29.9). The groups were well matched with regard to baseline characteristics. There was only 1 in-hospital mortality, and this was in the BMI < 30 group. There was no difference in repair rate for degenerative disease (100% vs 96.3%, P > 0.99 respectively) or operative durations [cross-clamp: 122 min interquartile range (IQR) 100-141) vs 125 min (IQR 105-146), P = 0.72, respectively]. There were only 6 conversions to sternotomy, all in non-obese patients. There was no significant difference in any other perioperative or post-operative outcomes. Using the Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no significant difference in 5-year survival between the 2 groups (95.8% vs 95.5%, P = 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients having MIMVS, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that obesity affects either short- or mid-term outcomes. Obesity should therefore not be considered as a contraindication to this technique for experienced teams.