Fast-track virtual reality software to facilitate 3-dimensional reconstruction in congenital heart disease.

OBJECTIVES: Two limitations of the clinical use of 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction and virtual reality systems are the relatively high cost and the amount of experience required to use hardware and software to effectively explore medical images. We have tried to simplify the process and validate a new tool developed for this purpose with a novel software package. METHODS: Five patients with right partial anomalous pulmonary venous return with adequate preoperative images acquired with magnetic resonance imaging were enrolled. Five volunteers with no previous experience in the field of 3D reconstruction were instructed to use the software after viewing a short video tutorial. Users were then asked to create a 3D model of each patient's heart using DIVA software. Their results were compared quantitatively and qualitatively with a benchmark reconstruction performed by an experienced user. RESULTS: All our participants recreated 3D models in a relatively short time, maintaining a good overall quality (average quality score ≥ 3 on a scale of 1-5). The overall trend of all the parameters analysed showed a statistical improvement between case 1 and case 5, as users became more and more experienced. CONCLUSIONS: DIVA is a simple software program that allows accurate 3D reconstruction in a relatively short time ("fast-track" virtual reality). In this study, we demonstrated the potential use of DIVA by inexperienced users, with a significant improvement in quality and time after a few cases were performed. Further studies are needed to confirm the potential application of this technology on a larger scale.

Standard versus rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement and concomitant myocardial revascularization: 5-year bi-centre clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical outcomes of 2 generations of pericardial bioprostheses in concomitant aortic valve and coronary artery bypass graft surgery were analysed. METHODS: Patients were recruited from 2 European centres and divided into 2 groups based on the type of aortic bioprosthesis used: Edwards Intuity Elite™ rapid-deployment (RD) bioprostheses or standard Edwards Magna Ease (ME). A propensity score weighting approach was used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients were included: 144 (50.5%) in the RD group and 141 (49.5%) in the ME group. Thirty-day mortality was 2.8% (RD) and 5% (ME) (P = 0.09). Significantly shorter times of aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass were observed in the RD cohort [94 vs 120 min (P < 0.001); 128 vs 160 min (P < 0.001)]. The RD group was associated with a lower median transvalvular gradient at discharge and follow-up (both P < 0.001). However, 5-year survival was not different, being 93% in RD patients and 91% in the ME group [hazard ratio 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.38-2.09), P = 0.784]. The 5-year cumulative incidence of combined events (including percutaneous coronary interventions, endocarditis, thromboembolic events, rehospitalizations and bleeding) favoured the ME group [16.1% (RD) vs 7.3% (ME)] [hazard ratio 2.38 (95% confidence interval:1.03-5.52), P = 0.043]. However, this turned similar when the Cox model analysis was adjusted for revascularization variables (P = 0.067). CONCLUSIONS: RD and ME pericardial bioprostheses used in concomitant aortic valve replacement and coronary artery revascularization provide equivalent clinical and haemodynamic 5-year outcomes, despite constant lower transvalvular gradients and shorter surgical operating times observed with RD technology.

Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease bioprosthesis: a multicentre clinical experience and 12-year durability.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this multicentre retrospective study was to compare long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease (CEME) bioprosthesis by patient age. METHODS: We included consecutive patients who underwent isolated and combined surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with CEME valve between January 2008 and March 2020 at 4 cardiac surgery centres in Italy. Survival distribution was evaluated at follow-up according to age and surgery type (combined or isolated AVR), together with freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD), reoperation and combined events, i.e. SVD, reoperation, endocarditis and thromboembolic events. RESULTS: A total of 1027 isolated and 1121 combined AVR were included; 776 patients were younger than 65 years whereas 1372 were 65 years or older. The 30-day Valve-Academic-Research-Consortium mortality was 2% (<65 years) and 6% (≥ 65 years) (P < 0.001), whereas it was 3% for isolated AVR and 7% for combined AVR (P < 0.001). The 12-year survival was 81% for those younger than 65 years vs 45% for those equal to or older than 65 years (P < 0.001), whereas they were 61% vs 49% for isolated and combined AVR (P = 0.10). The 12-year freedom from combined events, excluding death, was 79% for those younger than 65 years vs 87% for those equal to or older than (P = 0.51), whereas they were 83% for isolated and 86% for combined AVR (P = 0.10). The 12-year freedom from SVD was 93% and 93% in patients younger than 65 and those equal to or older than 65 years (P = 0.63), and the results were comparable even in cases with isolated and combined AVR (92% vs 94%, P = 0.21). A multivariable Cox analysis including gender, presence of patient-prosthesis mismatch, isolated AVR and age showed that only the age was an independent risk factor for the incidence of SVD (P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes from this large multicentre analysis demonstrated that a CEME bioprosthesis provides good clinical results and long-term durability even in patients younger than 65 years. Furthermore, the hazard for SVD has been shown to be lower for older age. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 105n/AO/21.