Can we safely expand the donation after circulatory death donor heart pool by extending the donor age limit?

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of donor age on outcomes following donation after circulatory death heart transplantation. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried to analyze adult recipients who underwent isolated donation after circulatory heart transplantation from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2023. The cohort was stratified into 2 groups according to donor age, where advanced donor age was defined as 40 years or more. Outcomes were 90-day and 1-year post-transplant survival. Propensity score matching was performed. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of recipient age on 90-day survival among the recipients with advanced-age donors. RESULTS: A total of 994 recipients were included in the study period, and 161 patients (17.1%) received allografts from advanced-age donors. During the study period, the annual incidence of donation after circulatory heart transplantation with advanced-age donors substantially increased. The recipients with advanced-age donors had similar 90-day and 1-year post-transplant survivals compared with the recipients with younger donors. The comparable 90-day survival persisted in a propensity score-matched comparison. In the subgroup analysis among the recipients with advanced-age donors, the recipients aged 60 years or more had significantly reduced 90-day survival compared with the recipients aged less than 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: The use of appropriately selected donation after circulatory donors aged 40 years or more has similar survival compared with that of younger donors. With careful candidate risk stratification and selection, consideration of using donation after circulatory donors aged more than 40 years may further ameliorate ongoing organ shortage with comparable early post-transplant outcomes.

Consensus statement-graft treatment in cardiovascular bypass graft surgery.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is and continues to be the preferred revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease. Graft selection has been shown to influence the outcomes following CABG. During the last almost 60 years saphenous vein grafts (SVG) together with the internal mammary artery have become the standard of care for patients undergoing CABG surgery. While there is little doubt about the benefits, the patency rates are constantly under debate. Despite its acknowledged limitations in terms of long-term patency due to intimal hyperplasia, the saphenous vein is still the most often used graft. Although reendothelialization occurs early postoperatively, the process of intimal hyperplasia remains irreversible. This is due in part to the persistence of high shear forces, the chronic localized inflammatory response, and the partial dysfunctionality of the regenerated endothelium. "No-Touch" harvesting techniques, specific storage solutions, pressure controlled graft flushing and external stenting are important and established methods aiming to overcome the process of intimal hyperplasia at different time levels. Still despite the known evidence these methods are not standard everywhere. The use of arterial grafts is another strategy to address the inferior SVG patency rates and to perform CABG with total arterial revascularization. Composite grafting, pharmacological agents as well as latest minimal invasive techniques aim in the same direction. To give guide and set standards all graft related topics for CABG are presented in this expert opinion document on graft treatment.

The Clinical Significance of Unplanned Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Aortic Root Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Unexpected coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is occasionally required during aortic root replacement (ARR). However, the impact of unplanned CABG remains unknown. DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective observational study. SETTING: At university-affiliated tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who underwent ARR from 2011 through 2022. INTERVENTIONS: Aortic root replacement with or without unplanned CABG. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 795 patients underwent ARR. Among them, 131 (16.5%) underwent planned concomitant CABG, and 34 (4.3%) required unplanned CABG. The most common indication of unplanned CABG was ventricular dysfunction (33.3%), followed by disease pathology (25.6%), anatomy (15.4%), and surgical complications (10.3%). A vein graft to the right coronary artery was the most commonly performed bypass. Infective endocarditis and aortic dissection were observed in 27.8% and 12.8%, respectively. Prior cardiac surgery was seen in 40.3%. The median follow-up period was 4.3 years. Unplanned CABG was not associated with operative mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% CI 0.33-7.16, p = 0.58) or long-term mortality (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.89, p = 0.81). Body surface area smaller than 1.7 was independently associated with an increased risk of unplanned CABG (OR 4.51, 95% CI 1.85-11.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned CABG occurred in 4.3% of patients during ARR, but was not associated with operative mortality or long-term mortality. A small body surface area was a factor associated with unplanned CABG.

Outcomes of Aortomitral Continuity Reconstruction During Concomitant Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: To describe outcomes of reconstruction of the aortomitral continuity (AMC) during concomitant aortic and mitral valve replacement (ie, the "Commando" procedure). DESIGN: A retrospective study of consecutive cardiac surgeries from 2010 to 2022. SETTING: At a single institution. PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing double aortic and mitral valve replacement. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were dichotomized by the performance (or not) of AMC reconstruction. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 331 patients underwent double-valve replacement, of whom 21 patients (6.3%) had a Commando procedure. The Commando group was more likely to have had a previous aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) (66.7% v 27.4%, p < 0.001), redo cardiac surgery (71.4% v 31.3%, p < 0.001), and emergent/salvage surgery (14.3% v 1.61%, p = 0.001), whereas surgery was more often performed for endocarditis in the Commando group (52.4% v 22.9%, p = 0.003). The Commando group had higher operative mortality (28.6% v 10.7%, p = 0.014), more prolonged ventilation (61.9% v 31.9%, p = 0.005), longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (312 ± 118 v 218 ± 85 minutes, p < 0.001), and longer ischemic time (252 ± 90 v 176 ± 66 minutes, p < 0.001). Despite increased short-term morbidity in the Commando group, Kaplan-Meier survival estimation showed no difference in long-term survival between each group (p = 0.386, log-rank). On multivariate Cox analysis, the Commando procedure was not associated with an increased hazard of death, compared to MVR + AVR (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% CI: 0.65-2.59, p = 0.496). CONCLUSIONS: Although short-term postoperative morbidity and mortality were found to be higher for patients undergoing the Commando procedure, AMC reconstruction may be equally durable in the long term.

Outcomes of Impella 5.0 and 5.5 for cardiogenic shock: A single-center 137 patient experience.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 and identified risk factors for in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Adults with CS who were supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 at a single institution were included. Patients were stratified into three groups according to their CS etiology: (1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), (2) acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), and (3) postcardiotomy (PC). The primary outcome was survival, and secondary outcomes included adverse events during Impella support and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven patients with CS secondary to AMI (n = 47), ADHF (n = 86), and PC (n = 4) were included. The ADHF group had the highest survival rates at all time points. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was the most common complication during Impella support in all 3 groups. Increased rates of AKI and de novo renal replacement therapy were observed in the PC group, and the AMI group experienced a higher incidence of bleeding requiring transfusion. Multivariable analysis demonstrated diabetes mellitus, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality, but the etiology of CS did not impact mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that Impella 5.0 and 5.5 provide effective mechanical support for patients with CS with favorable outcomes, with nearly two-thirds of patients alive at 180 days. Diabetes, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine are strong risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

Midterm Outcomes After Aortic Valve Neocuspidization (Ozaki Procedure) in Adults.

BACKGROUND: Trileaflet aortic valve neocuspidization (AVN) using autologous pericardium (Ozaki procedure) is an emerging surgical treatment option for aortic valve diseases. Although excellent results have been reported from Japan, data pertaining to its use in the United States are sparse. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent AVN (AVN group) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve (SAVR group) between 2015 and 2022 were identified. Propensity score matching was used to adjust the baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients underwent AVN, and 1816 patients underwent SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve. None in the AVN group required conversion to SAVR. Before matching, mean age in the AVN group was 68.5 ± 8.8 years, and 56 patients (55.4%) underwent concomitant procedures. Preoperatively, 3 (3%) had endocarditis. Bicuspid valve was observed in 38 (38.4%). None died at 30 days in the AVN group. The median follow-up duration was 3.2 years. After propensity score matching, the expected survival and freedom from at least moderate aortic regurgitation at 5 years was 91.7% ± 3.1% and 97.6% ± 1.7%, respectively. Propensity score matching yielded 77 patients in each group. The Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated equivalent survival at 5 years between the 2 groups (P = .95). Additionally, freedom from at least moderate aortic regurgitation was comparable at 5 years (P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: AVN can be safely performed for a variety of aortic valve diseases, with or without concomitant operations. AVN demonstrated similar midterm outcomes compared with SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve in the United States adult population.

Radial artery vs right internal mammary artery as a second conduit during coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of radial artery (RA) grafts during CABG to those of right internal mammary artery (RIMA) grafts. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-institution cohort study of isolated CABG with multiple grafts between 2010-2022. To balance graft cohorts, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using a 1:1 match ratio. Long-term postoperative survival was compared among RA and RIMA groups. Similarly, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were compared among both cohorts, with MACCE comprising death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and stroke. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed for mortality, while cumulative incidence estimation was utilized for MACCE. RESULTS: A total of 8,774 patients underwent CABG. Of those, 1,674 (19.1%) patients who underwent multiarterial CABG were included in this analysis. 326 (19.5%) patients received RA grafts and 1,348 (80.5%) received RIMA grafts. PSM yielded a cohort of 323 RA patients and 323 RIMA patients. After matching, groups were well-balanced across all baseline variables. No significant differences were observed in immediate postoperative complications or long-term survival, with 5-year survival estimates of 89.5% for the RA group vs 90.1% for the RIMA group. There was a nonsignificant trend toward a higher incidence of MACCE at 5 years in the RA group compared to the RIMA group (31.3% in the RA group vs 24.1% in the RIMA group), especially after 1-year follow-up (21.6% in the RA group vs 15.1% in the RIMA group). Specifically, for RA patients, there were higher rates of repeat revascularization in the 5-year postoperative period (14.7% in the RA group vs 5.3% in the RIMA group), particularly in the territory revascularized by the RA during the index operation (45.7% in the RA group vs 10.3% in the RIMA group). CONCLUSION: Overall, RA and RIMA secondary conduits for CABG were associated with comparable immediate postoperative complications, 5-year MACCE, and 5-year survival after PSM. RA grafting was associated with significantly higher rates of repeat coronary revascularization at 5 years, specifically in the territory revascularized by the RA during the index operation.

Outcomes of Radial Artery Versus Saphenous Vein as A Second Conduit After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Despite the advantages of multiarterial grafting, saphenous vein (SV) configurations predominate in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In addition, the benefits of radial artery (RA) utilization in multivessel CABG remain unclear. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who received RA grafts during CABG with those of patients who received SV grafts. A retrospective, single-institution cohort study was performed in 8,774 adults who underwent isolated CABG surgery with multiple grafts between 2010 and 2022. To balance graft cohorts, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using a 1:2 (RA/SV) match ratio. Long-term postoperative survival was compared in RA and SV graft groups. Similarly, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates were compared in the cohorts, with MACCE comprising death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and stroke. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed for both mortality and MACCE. A total of 7,218 patients (82.3%) who underwent multivessel CABG were included in this analysis. Of these patients, 341 (4.7%) received RA grafts, and 6,877 (95.3%) received SV grafts secondary to left internal mammary artery use. PSM yielded a cohort of 335 patients with RA and 670 patients with SV. After matching, groups were well balanced across all baseline variables. No significant differences were observed in either immediate postoperative morbidities or long-term survival. However, Kaplan-Meier estimates of long-term postoperative freedom from MACCE were significantly greater in matched patients with SV (73.3%) than in those with RA (67.4%) (p = 0.044, cluster log-rank), with patients with SV also possessing significantly greater freedom from coronary revascularization and MI. In conclusion, RA and SV secondary conduits for CABG were associated with comparable immediate postoperative complications and long-term survival after PSM. SV grafting was associated with significantly decreased rates of postoperative MACCE, likely owing to lower rates of coronary revascularization and MI than in RA grafting.

Long-Term Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data.

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo-SAVR, we performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of nonrandomized studies published by August 2023. A total of 16 studies met our eligibility criteria, with a total of 4,373 patients (2,204 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 2,169 patients underwent redo-SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.73, p <0.001), with an HR reversal after this time point favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.33, p <0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (which represented 64.6% of the overall population), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.001], with a reversal after 6 months favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.93, p <0.001). The meta-regression analyses revealed a modulating effect of the following covariates: age, coronary artery disease, history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and implanted valves <25 mm. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with better survival immediately after the procedure than redo-SAVR; however, this primary advantage reverses over time, and redo-SAVR seems to offer better survival at a later stage. Because these results are pooled data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution, and randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Donation after circulatory death improves probability of heart transplantation in waitlisted candidates and results in post-transplant outcomes similar to those achieved with brain-dead donors.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitate the impact of heart donation after circulatory death (DCD) donor utilization on both waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in the United States. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried to identify all adult waitlisted and transplanted candidates between October 18, 2018, and December 31, 2022. Waitlisted candidates were stratified according to whether they had been approved for donation after brain death (DBD) offers only or also approved for DCD offers. The cumulative incidence of transplantation was compared between the 2 cohorts. In a post-transplant analysis, 1-year post-transplant survival was compared between unmatched and propensity-score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. RESULTS: A total of 14,803 candidates were waitlisted, including 12,287 approved for DBD donors only and 2516 approved for DCD donors. Overall, DCD approval was associated with an increased sub-hazard ratio (HR) for transplantation and a lower sub-HR for delisting owing to death/deterioration after risk adjustment. In a subgroup analysis, candidates with blood type B and status 4 designation received the greatest benefit from DCD approval. A total of 12,238 recipients underwent transplantation, 11,636 with DBD hearts and 602 with DCD hearts. Median waitlist times were significantly shorter for status 3 and status 4 recipients receiving DCD hearts. One-year post-transplant survival was comparable between unmatched and propensity score-matched cohorts of DBD and DCD recipients. CONCLUSIONS: The use of DCD hearts confers a higher probability of transplantation and a lower incidence of death/deterioration while on the waitlist, particularly among certain subpopulations such as status 4 candidates. Importantly, the use of DCD donors results in similar post-transplant survival as DBD donors.

Respect Versus Resect Approaches for Mitral Valve Repair: A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

Mitral valve repair (MVr) has been associated with superior long-term survival and freedom from valve-related complications compared with mitral valve replacement for primary mitral regurgitation (MR). The 2 main approaches for MVr are chordal replacement ("respect approach") and leaflet resection ("resect approach"). We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis using 3 search databases to compare the long-term end points between both approaches. The primary end point was long-term survival. The secondary end points were long-term MR recurrence and reoperation. After reconstruction of time-to-event data for the individual survival analysis, pooled Kaplan-Meier curves for the end points were generated. A total of 14 studies (5,565 patients) were included in the analysis. The respect approach was associated with superior survival compared with the resect approach in the overall sample (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.96, p = 0.024, n = 3,901 patients) but not in the risk-adjusted sample (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82, p = 0.991, n = 620 patients). There was no difference between the approaches in the rate of MR recurrence in the overall sample (HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.08, p = 0.116, n = 1,882 patients) or in the risk-adjusted sample (HR 1.62, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.47, p = 0.211, n = 288 patients). The data for reoperation were only available in the overall sample and did not reveal a difference (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.35, p = 0.663, n = 3,505 patients). In conclusion, the current evidence suggests no difference in long-term mortality, MR recurrence, or reoperation between the resect and respect approaches for MVr after adjusting for patient risk factors. More long-term follow-up data are warranted.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus isolated redo surgical aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: This was a retrospective study using institutional databases of transcatheter (2013-2022) and surgical (2011-2022) aortic valve replacements. Patients who underwent ViV TAVR were compared with patients who underwent redo isolated SAVR. Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression were performed. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for heart failure readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 4200 TAVRs and 2306 isolated SAVRs were performed. Of these, there were 198 patients who underwent ViV TAVR and 147 patients who underwent redo SAVR. Operative mortality was 2% in each group, but observed to expected operative mortality in the redo SAVR group was higher than in the ViV TAVR group (1.2 vs 0.32). Those who underwent redo SAVR were more likely to require transfusions and reoperation for bleeding, to have new-onset renal failure requiring dialysis, and to require a permanent pacemaker postoperatively than those in the ViV group. Mean gradient was significantly lower in the redo SAVR group than in the ViV group at 30 days and 1 year. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1 year were comparable, and on multivariable Cox regression, ViV TAVR was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death compared with redo SAVR (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.65-2.99; P = .40). Competing-risk cumulative incidence estimates for heart-failure readmissions were higher in the ViV cohort. CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVR and redo SAVR were associated with comparable mortality. Patients who underwent redo SAVR had lower postoperative mean gradients and greater freedom from heart failure readmissions, but they also had more postoperative complications than the VIV group, despite their lower baseline risk profiles.

Outcomes of Root Enlargement vs Root Replacement for Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Stentless aortic root replacement (ARR) and aortic root enlargement (ARE) are established strategies to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and small annuli. We sought to compare outcomes of these 2 procedures. METHODS: This was an observational study using an institutional database of aortic valve replacements from 2010 to 2021. The study compared patients who underwent ARE vs ARR for AS. Those with endocarditis or aortic aneurysms were excluded. Postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression for survival were performed. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for all-cause readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 533 patients underwent either ARE or ARR for AS. Of these, 193 (36.2%) underwent ARE and 340 (63.8%) underwent ARR with a stentless xenograft. There were no significant differences in operative mortality, stroke, length of stay, or new-onset renal failure requiring dialysis. There were also no significant differences in aortic valve reintervention rates (3.1% vs 1.8%; P = .314). Patients in the ARR group had larger valves implanted, larger indexed effective orifice areas, lower rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch, and lower transprosthetic gradients (P < .001). Median follow-up was 5.02 (2.70-7.8) years. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were comparable, and on multivariable Cox regression, ARR vs ARE was not significantly associated with an increased hazard of death (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.69-1.45; P = .996). Cumulative incidence estimates for all-cause readmissions were also comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: ARE and stentless xenograft ARR for AS were associated with comparable postoperative complications, aortic valve reinterventions, freedom from readmission, and 5-year survival.

Impact of Aortic Root Enlargement on Patients Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Aortic root enlargement (ARE) can be an important adjunct for aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study compared outcomes of AVR with or without ARE. METHODS: This was an observational study using an institutional database of AVRs from 2010 to 2020 comparing patients who underwent isolated AVR vs AVR with ARE (AVR+ARE). Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression were performed. RESULTS: Of 2371 patients, 2240 (94.5%) underwent isolated AVR and 131 (5.5%) underwent AVR+ARE. Patients who underwent AVR+ARE were more likely to be women and to be younger than those who underwent isolated AVR. Prosthesis size was smaller in patients undergoing AVR+ARE (23 mm [interquartile range {IQR}, 21-25] vs 25 mm [IQR, 23-25], P < .001), but indexed effective orifice area did not differ between the 2 groups. Operative mortality was comparable for AVR (2.3%) and AVR+ARE (3.8%, P = .28). Patients who underwent AVR+ARE had a longer length of stay (7 days [IQR, 6-13] vs 6 days [IQR 5-10], P < .001), were more likely to have acute kidney injury (6.1% vs 2.5%, P = .01), were more likely to require blood product transfusions (40.5% vs 27.6%, P < .001), and were more likely to require prolonged ventilation > 24 hours (16.0% vs 6.8%, P < .001). Rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker, and reoperation were comparable between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were similar, and on multivariable regression AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased hazard of death as compared with AVR (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.46; P = .59). CONCLUSIONS: ARE can be safely performed with isolated AVR and should be considered for patients with small annuli to avoid prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Coronary Artery Bypass With Multiarterial Grafting vs Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Data comparing patients who undergo multiarterial grafting during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multivessel coronary disease are scarce. This study addresses the relevance of using multiple arterial conduits vs PCI for appropriate patients. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients with coronary artery disease who underwent CABG with multiple arterial conduits or PCI. Propensity score matching was performed for baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier estimates, cumulative incidence, and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) curves were performed. RESULTS: The total patient population consisted of 3648 patients from 2011 to 2018 divided into 902 CABG patients and 2746 PCI patients. Patients were propensity matched (PCI, n = 838; CABG, n = 838). In the CABG cohort the left internal mammary artery was used in 837 patients (99.9%), the right internal mammary artery in 770 patients (92%), and radial arteries in 108 patients (12.9%). Patients in the PCI cohort had significantly higher 30-day mortality (24 [2.9%] vs 7 [0.8%], P < .01). Survival over follow-up (median, 4.9 years; range, 3.3-6.8) was better for the CABG cohort (730 [87.1%] vs 625 [74.6%], P < .01). Patients in the CABG cohort had greater freedom from MACCE (607 [72.4%] vs 339 [40.5%], P < .01). Cox multivariable regression showed that patients who underwent CABG had a significantly reduced risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.61; P < .01) and of MACCE (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.38; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with coronary artery disease who undergo CABG with multiple arterial conduits have significantly fewer major adverse events, improved survival, and reduced hospital readmissions.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of mid-term survival, reoperation, and recurrent mitral regurgitation for robotic-assisted mitral valve repair.

Background: Over the past two decades surgical approaches for mitral valve (MV) disease have evolved with the advent of minimally invasive techniques. Robotic mitral valve repair (RMVr) safety and efficacy has been well documented, however, mid- to long-term data are limited. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive analysis of the available mid- to long-term data for RMVr. Methods: Electronic searches of five databases were performed to identify all relevant studies reporting minimum five-year data on RMVr. Pre-defined primary outcomes of interest were overall survival, freedom from MV reoperation and from moderate or worse mitral regurgitation (MR) at five years or more post-RMVr. A meta-analysis of proportions or means was performed, utilizing a random effects model, to present the data. Kaplan-Meier curves were aggregated using reconstructed individual patient data. Results: Nine studies totaling 3,300 patients undergoing RMVr were identified. Rates of overall survival at 1-, 5- and 10-year were 99.2%, 97.4% and 92.3%, respectively. Freedom from MV reoperation at eight-years post RMVr was 95.0%. Freedom from moderate or worse MR at seven years was 86.0%. Rates of early post-operative complications were low with only 0.2% all-cause mortality and 1.0% cerebrovascular accident. Reoperation for bleeding was low at 2.2% and successful RMVr was 99.8%. Mean intensive care unit and hospital stay were 22.4 hours and 5.2 days, respectively. Conclusions: RMVr is a safe procedure with low rates of early mortality and other complications. It can be performed with low complication rates in high volume, experienced centers. Evaluation of available mid-term data post-RMVr suggests favorable rates of overall survival, freedom from MV reoperation and from moderate or worse MR recurrence.

Outcomes of bovine versus porcine surgical aortic valve replacement.

INTRODUCTION: There are no guidelines regarding the use of bovine pericardial or porcine valves for aortic valve replacement, and prior studies have yielded conflicting results. The current study sought to compare short- and long-term outcomes in propensity-matched cohorts of patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bovine versus porcine valves. METHODS: This was a retrospective study utilizing an institutional database of all isolated bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacements performed at our center from 2010 to 2020. Patients were stratified according to type of bioprosthetic valve (bovine pericardial or porcine), and 1:1 propensity-score matching was applied. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression for mortality were performed. Cumulative incidence functions were generated for all-cause readmissions and aortic valve reinterventions. RESULTS: A total of 1502 patients were identified, 1090 (72.6%) of whom received a bovine prosthesis and 412 (27.4%) of whom received a porcine prosthesis. Propensity-score matching resulted in 412 risk-adjusted pairs. There were no significant differences in clinical or echocardiographic postoperative outcomes in the matched cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were comparable, and, on multivariable Cox regression, valve type was not significantly associated with long-term mortality (hazard ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.74, 1.40, p = .924). Additionally, there were no significant differences in competing-risk cumulative incidence estimates for all-cause readmissions (p = .68) or aortic valve reinterventions (p = .25) in the matched cohorts. CONCLUSION: The use of either bovine or porcine bioprosthetic aortic valves yields comparable postoperative outcomes, long-term survival, freedom from reintervention, and freedom from readmission.

Robotic versus conventional sternotomy mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Robotic-assisted mitral valve surgery (RMVS) is becoming an increasingly performed procedure in cardiac surgery, however, its true safety and efficacy compared to the gold standard conventional sternotomy approach [conventional sternotomy mitral valve surgery (CSMVS)] remains debated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive analysis of all available literature comparing RMVS to CSMVS. Methods: An electronic search of five databases was performed to identify all relevant studies comparing RMVS to CSMVS. Pre-defined primary outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) and re-operation for bleeding. Secondary outcomes of interest included cross clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Results: The search strategy identified fourteen studies qualifying for inclusion in this meta-analysis comparing RMVS to CSMVS. The outcomes of 6,341 patients (2,804 RMVS and 3,537 CSMVS) were included. RMVS had significantly lower mortality when compared to CSMVS group in both the unmatched [odds ratio (OR) 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.57; P<0.001] and matched cohorts (OR 0.35; 95% CI: 0.15-0.80; P=0.01). There was no significant difference in rates of CVA or re-operation for bleeding between the two groups in either the entire included cohort or matched patients. CSMVS had significantly shorter cross clamp time by 28 minutes (95% CI: 19.30-37.32; P<0.001) and CPB time by 49 minutes (95% CI: 36.16-61.01; P<0.001) which remained significantly shorter in the matched cohorts. RMVS had shorter ICU [mean difference (MD) 26 hours; 95% CI: -34.31 to -18.52; P<0.001] and hospital LOS (MD 2 days; 95% CI: -2.66 to -1.37; P<0.001), which were again both significantly shorter in the matched cohort. RMVS group also had fewer RBC transfusions (OR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.28-0.70; P<0.001). Conclusions: Current evidence on comparative outcomes of RMVS and CSMVS is limited with only low-quality studies currently available. This present meta-analysis suggests that RMVS may have lower mortality and shorter ICU and hospital LOS, however CSMVS may be associated with significantly shorter cross clamp and CPB times. Further analysis of high-quality studies with randomized data is required to verify these results.