Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Sixteen Years of Single-Center Experience.

Background: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of death globally. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB), using a small left anterior thoracotomy, aims to provide a less invasive alternative to traditional procedures, potentially improving patient outcomes with reduced recovery times. Methods: This retrospective, non-randomized study analyzed 310 patients who underwent MIDCAB between July 1999 and April 2022. Data were collected on demographics, clinical characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes, and follow-up mortality and morbidity. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS, with survival curves generated via the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The cohort had a mean age of 63.3 ± 10.9 years, with 30.6% females. The majority of surgeries were elective (76.1%), with an average operating time of 129.7 ± 35.3 min. The median rate of intraoperative blood transfusions was 0.0 (CI 0.0-2.0) Units. The mean in-hospital stay was 8.7 ± 5.5 days, and the median ICU stay was just one day. Early postoperative complications were minimal, with a 0.64% in-hospital mortality rate. The 6-month and 1-year mortalities were 0.97%, with a 10-year survival rate of 94.3%. There were two cases of perioperative myocardial infarction and no instances of stroke or new onset dialysis. Conclusions: The MIDCAB approach demonstrates significant benefits in terms of patient recovery and long-term outcomes, offering a viable and effective alternative for patients suitable for less invasive procedures. Our results suggest that MIDCAB is a safe option with favorable survival rates, justifying its consideration in high-volume centers focused on minimally invasive techniques.

Surgical Therapy of Infective Prosthesis Endocarditis following TAVI: A Single Center's Experience.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Infective prosthesis endocarditis (IE) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) presents significant management challenges, marked by high mortality rates. This study reviews our center's experience with surgical interventions for IE in patients post-TAVI, focusing on outcomes, challenges, and procedural complexities, and providing an overview of the limited literature surrounding this subject. METHODS: This study was executed as a comprehensive retrospective analysis, targeting the clinical outcomes of surgical treatment in patients presenting with PVE following TAVI procedures at our institution. From July 2017 to July 2022, we identified five patients who had previously undergone transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation and were later diagnosed with PVE needing surgery, strictly adhering to the modified Duke criteria. RESULTS: All surgical procedures were reported successful with no intra- or postoperative mortality. Patients were predominantly male (80%), with an average age of 76 ± 8.6 years, presenting mostly with dyspnea (NYHA Class II). The mean follow-up was between 121 and 1973 days, with outcomes showing no occurrences of stroke, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding. One patient expired from unrelated causes 3.7 years post-surgery. The operative and postoperative protocols demonstrated effective disease management with enhanced survival and minimal complications. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical treatment of IE following TAVI, though challenging, can be successfully achieved with careful patient selection and a multidisciplinary approach. The favorable outcomes suggest that surgical intervention remains a viable option for managing this high-risk patient group. Our study also highlights the scarce literature available on this topic, suggesting an urgent need for more comprehensive research to enhance understanding and improve treatment strategies. Future studies with larger cohorts are needed to further validate these findings and refine surgical strategies for this growing patient population.

Single-Center Real-World Experience with Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Isolated and Combined Procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Due to their favourable hemodynamic performance and the ability to enable minimally invasive access procedures, sutureless aortic valve prostheses have found their place in the armamentarium of cardiothoracic surgeons. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR). METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients who underwent an SU-AVR with a Perceval valve between December 2019 and February 2023. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 69.3 ± 8.1 years, and patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a mean logistic EuroSCORE-II of 5.2 ± 8.1%. An isolated SU-AVR was performed in 85 (42.5%) patients, concomitant CABG was performed in 75 (37.5%) and 40 patients (20%) underwent a multivalve procedure involving SU-AVR. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp (CC) times were 82.1 ± 35.1 and 55.5 ± 27.8 min, respectively. In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month and 1-year mortality rates were 4.5%, 6.5%, 7.5% and 8.2%, respectively. The postoperative transvalvular mean pressure gradient was 6.3 ± 1.6 mmHg and stayed stable over the follow-up time. We reported no cases of paravalvular leakage, and the incidence of stroke was 0.5%. CONCLUSIONS: With their favourable hemodynamic performance and shorter CC and CPB times, sutureless aortic valve prostheses facilitate minimally invasive access surgery, being a safe and durable promising approach for the surgical AVR.

Sutureless Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Redo Procedures: Single-Center Experience.

Background and Objectives: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have presented favorable hemodynamic performance while facilitating minimally invasive access approaches. As the population ages, the number of patients at risk for aortic valve reoperation constantly increases. The aim of the present study is to present our single-center experience in sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in reoperations. Materials and Methods: The data of 18 consecutive patients who underwent SU-AVR in a reoperation between May 2020 and January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The mean age of the patients was 67.9 ± 11.1 years; patients showed a moderate-risk profile with a median logistic EuroSCORE II of 7.8 (IQR of 3.8-32.0) %. The implantation of the Perceval S prosthesis was technically successful in all patients. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 103.3 ± 50.0 min, and the cross-clamp time was 69.1 ± 38.8 min. No patients required a permanent pacemaker implantation. The postoperative gradient was 7.3 ± 2.4 mmHg, and no cases of paravalvular leakage were observed. There was one case of intraprocedural death, while the thirty-day mortality was 11%. Conclusions: Sutureless bioprosthetic valves tend to simplify the surgical procedure of a redo AVR. By maximizing the effective orifice area, sutureless valves may present an important advantage, being a safe and effective alternative not only to traditional surgical prostheses but also to transcatheter valve-in-valve approaches in select cases.

Conventional Biological versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Prostheses in Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have proven to provide a significant decrease in procedural, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time, leading to a significant reduction in mortality risk in elderly high-risk cohorts. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience on the sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and the concomitant mitral valve replacement (SMVR), comparing the combined conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with SMVR. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Between March 2018 and July 2022, 114 consecutive patients underwent a combined aortic and mitral valve replacement at our institution. We stratified the patients according to the operative procedures into two groups and matched them 1:2: Group 1 underwent a combined conventional SAVR and SMVR (n = 46), and Group 2 included combined SU-AVR with Perceval prosthesis and SMVR (n = 23). RESULTS: No significant differences in the preoperative characteristics were present. SU-AVR combined with SMVR demonstrated excellent haemodynamic performance, comparable to that of SAVR plus SMVR, with median postoperative gradients over the aortic valve of 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 1 and 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 2 (p = 0.67). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative major adverse events such as death, stroke, myocardial infarction and kidney failure between the groups. There was also no significant difference in the permanent pacemaker implantation rate, paravalvular leakage or valve dislocation. We also could not detect any significant difference in postoperative mortality between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: SU-AVR has proven to be a reliable alternative to conventional valve prostheses in patients with multivalve disease undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement, offering shorter procedural time and outstanding hemodynamic performance compared to the conventional surgical method.

Development and evaluation of a novel combined perfusion decellularization heart-lung model for tissue engineering of bioartificial heart-lung scaffolds.

BACKGROUND: Bioengineered transplantable heart-lung scaffolds could be potentially lifesaving in a large number of congenital and acquired cardiothoracic disorders including terminal heart-lung disease. METHODS: We decellularized heart-lung organ-blocks from rats (n = 10) by coronary and tracheal perfusion with ionic detergents in a modified Langendorff circuit. RESULTS: In the present project, we were able to achieve complete decellularization of the heart-lung organ-block. Decellularized heart-lung organ-blocks lacked intracellular components but maintained structure of the cellular walls with collagen and elastic fibers. CONCLUSIONS: We present a novel model of combined perfusion and decellularization of heart-lung organ-blocks. This model is the first step on the pathway to creating bioengineered transplantable heart-lung scaffolds. We believe that further development of this technology could provide a life-saving conduit, significantly reducing the risks of heart-lung failure surgery and improving postoperative quality of life.

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in pure aortic regurgitation: expanding the indications.

BACKGROUND: In the era of transcatheter methods, patients presenting with a pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are not considered eligible for transcatheter treatment and therefore require another less invasive surgical option. We sought to review our experience with sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) in patients presenting with symptomatic pure AR, which until now is a contraindication for implementation of sutureless valve prostheses in Europe. METHODS: Between April 2018 and June 2021, 80 consecutive patients underwent a SU-AVR for various indications at our institution. We analyzed the outcomes and postoperative complications of 12 patients presenting with a pure severe AR undergoing SU-AVR using Perceval (Corcym). RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 67 ± 9.1 years old. All patients presented with symptomatic pure AR. Patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the mean EuroSCORE-II of 3.6 ± 2.6%. Six patients (50%) underwent a concomitant CABG procedure. The mean operating- and cross clamp time was 127.25 ± 45.9 and 40.33 ± 17.3 min respectively. All isolated SU-AVR were performed via J-sternotomy or right anterolateral thoracotomy. There were no cases of device dislocation. No patients presented with a paravalvular leakage. We observed excellent mean postoperative pressure gradient at follow-up 5.7 ± 1.5 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with SU-AVR shows the feasibility of sutureless technologies in the aortic valve surgery due to pure AR. Besides the great technical success and excellent hemodynamics, SU-AVR in severe AR offers a great opportunity of reducing the invasivity of the surgical procedure and potentially reducing hospital cost without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay.

Non-Inferiority of Sutureless Aortic Valve Replacement in the TAVR Era: David versus Goliath.

BACKGROUND: The rapid development of transcatheter treatment methods has made transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) a feasible alternative to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Recently, indications for TAVR have been expanded to intermediate- and low-risk patients, although there still remains a portion of ineligible patients. We sought to evaluate and compare our experience with sutureless SAVR and transapical TAVR in the "grey-area" of patients unsuitable for transfemoral access. METHODS: Between April 2018 and June 2021, 248 consecutive patients underwent a sutureless SAVR (SU-SAVR) or TA-TAVR at our institution. We performed a pair-matched analysis and identified 56 patient pairs based on the EuroSCORE II. All transcatheter procedures were performed using SAPIEN XT/3™ prostheses, while all surgical procedures deployed the Perceval (LivaNova) aortic valve. RESULTS: All patients presented with multiple comorbidities as reflected by the median EuroSCORE-II of 3.1% (IQR 1.9-5.3). Thirty-four patients from the surgical group (60.7%) underwent a concomitant myocardial revascularization. There was no significant difference in major adverse events, pacemaker implantation or postoperative mortality during follow-up. Both interventions demonstrated technical success with similar mean postoperative pressure gradients at follow-up and no cases of paravalvular leakage. CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless aortic valve replacement constitutes a feasible treatment alternative for patients with aortic valve disease who are ineligible for transfemoral access route and/or require concomitant coronary revascularization. With its excellent hemodynamic performance, similar survival compared to TA-TAVR, and high cost-efficiency without compromising the postoperative outcomes and in-hospital length of stay SU-AVR might be considered for patients in the "grey-area" between TAVR and SAVR.