Performance, clinical outcomes and implementation of an original heart valve clinic model.

BACKGROUND: Valvular heart disease (VHD) requires optimized outpatient management that is generally considered to be best delivered by a dedicated, multidisciplinary team (Heart Valve Clinic [HVC]). Although HVC is promoted by clinical guidelines and organized in many centers, real world outcome assessments are limited. Thus, we evaluated the performance, clinical and management outcomes during a 6-year experience with an original HVC model. METHODS: By interrogating the local database, 1047 consecutive patients admitted to the HVC from January 2015 to October 2020 were found. Management and mortality were checked for all patients. After 3 years of HVC activity, in order to improve appropriateness and efficiency, access priority criteria were introduced. Thus, the study population was divided in two period subgroups (before and after access criteria introduction) that were compared. RESULTS: A total of 1047 consecutive patients admitted to the HVC constituted the study population; 346 patients (33%) were recommended for invasive treatment. After a mean follow-up of 25.7±3.1 months, 37 patients (3.5%) died. When comparing study periods, statistically significant increase inpatients' complexity and VHD severity was noticed in Period 2, also translating into higher rate of referral to intervention (39.0% vs. 29.4% in Period 1; P=0.001). Finally, despite higher rate of elderly and frail patients, operative mortality was not jeopardized. CONCLUSIONS: The present study reports a comprehensive assessment of the characteristics and outcomes achieved through an original HVC model. Standardization of access criteria supports the HVC improvement.

Clinical Impact of Heart Team Decisions for Patients With Complex Valvular Heart Disease: A Large, Single-Center Experience.

Background A multidisciplinary approach might be pivotal for the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD), but clinical outcome data are lacking. Methods and Results At our institution, since 2014, internal guidelines recommended heart team consultations for patients with VHD. The clinical/echocardiographic characteristics, treatment recommendations, performed treatment, and early clinical outcomes of consecutive, hospitalized patients with VHD undergoing heart team evaluation were collected. Surgical risk was prospectively assessed by the EuroSCORE II and STS-PROM. The primary end point of the study was early mortality. A total of 1004 patients with VHD with high clinical complexity (mean age, 75 years; mean EuroSCORE II, 9.4%; mean STS-PROM, 5.6%; 48% ischemic heart disease; 29% chronic kidney disease, 9% oncologic/hematologic diseases) were enrolled. The heart team recommended an interventional treatment for 807 (80%) patients and conservative management for 197 (20%) patients. Management crossovers occurred in only 5% of patients. The recommended intervention was cardiac surgery for 230 (23%) patients, percutaneous treatment in 516 (51%) patients, and hybrid treatment in 61 (6%) patients. Early mortality occurred in 24 patients (2.4%) and was independently predicted by aortic stenosis, left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, and conservative management recommendation. In patients referred to treatment, observed early mortality (1.7%) was significantly lower (P<0.001) than expected on the bases of both the STS-PROM (5.2%) and EuroSCORE II (9.7%). Conclusions Within the limitations of its single-center and observational design, the present study suggests that heart team-based management of patients with complex VHD is feasible and allows referral to a wide spectrum of interventions with promising early clinical results.

Influence of cardiopulmonary bypass set-up and management on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive aortic valve surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) requires changes in cannulation strategy and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) management when compared to the conventional approach (CAVR). We aimed at evaluating if these differences could influence perfusion-related quality parameters and impair postoperative outcomes. METHODS: Overall, 339 consecutive patients underwent MIAVR or CAVR between 2014 and 2020 and were analyzed retrospectively. To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed, obtaining two groups of 97 patients each. RESULTS: MIAVR group had longer CPB time [107 (95-120) vs 95 (86-105) min, p = .003] than CAVR group. Of note, average pump flow rate index [2.4 (2.2-2.5) vs 2.7 (2.4-2.8) l/min/m2, p = .004] was lower in the MIAVR group. Mean arterial pressure was 73 = 9 mmHg vs 62 = 11 mmHg for the MIAVR and CAVR group, respectively (p < .001). Cell-salvaged blood was most commonly used in the MIAVR group (25.8% vs 11.3%, p = .02). Finally, CPB temperature was 32.8°C (32.1-34.8) for MIAVR group vs 34.9°C (33.2-36.1) for the CAVR group (p = .02). Postoperative complications were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, despite differences in CPB parameters in patients undergoing CAVR and MIAVR, the incidences of adverse outcomes were similar. However, compared to CAVR, MIAVR was associated with shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as less transfusion of blood products.

Heart Valve Critical Pathway and Heart Valve Clinic: Novel Benchmarks for Modern Management of Valvular Heart Disease.

The growing burden of valvular heart disease in Western countries represents a challenge for the daily clinical practice, especially in the light of the ever-increasing number of therapeutic options. The Euro Heart Survey showed that, among elderly subjects with severe, symptomatic valve dysfunction, surgery is denied for 33% of patients with aortic stenosis and for 50% of patients with mitral regurgitation. Current management (from diagnosis to follow-up) is often fragmented in multiple-sometimes unnecessary-steps. Such a "patchy" approach may translate into a suboptimal management, especially in the geriatric population. New healthcare models exist that can coordinate care, reduce fragmentation, limit costs and, ultimately, improve outcomes: the clinical pathways.

Improved Patient Recovery With Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite conflicting evidence available, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is increasingly used as an alternative to full sternotomy. We sought to compare early outcomes of aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (conventional aortic valve replacement [CAVR]) and upper ministernotomy (MIAVR). METHODS: We analyzed 297 patients having undergone primary, elective, isolated MIAVR or CAVR between January 2014 and June 2018. Following propensity score matching, 120 patients remained in each group. RESULTS: MIAVR required longer bypass (93 ± 26 vs 81 ± 24 minutes, P < 0.01) and operative times (214 ± 39 vs 182 ± 37 minutes, P < 0.01). However, aortic cross-clamp times were comparable (57 ± 17 vs 54 ± 14 minutes for MIAVR and CAVR, respectively, P = 0.14). MIAVR had less 24-hour blood loss (253 ± 204 vs 323 ± 296 mL, P = 0.03), less red blood cells transfusions [1.4 packs (1.1 o 1.9) vs 2.1 packs (1.8 to 2.7), P = 0.01], and shorter assisted ventilation time (7.1 ± 3.3 vs 9.7 ± 3.8 hours, P < 0.01) when compared to CAVR. These results led to significantly shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays for MIAVR patients (2.5 ± 1.3 vs 3.4 ± 1.1 days, P < 0.01 and 6.9 ± 4.1 vs 8.2 ± 4.8 days, P = 0.03, respectively). Thirty-day mortality and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly among groups. CONCLUSIONS: MIAVR through upper ministernotomy was shown to be as safe and reliable as CAVR. Patient recovery time was improved by shortening mechanical ventilation and reducing blood loss and transfusions. These results may be significant for high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve surgery.

The "Heart Valve Clinic" Pathway for the Management of Frail Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: From "One for All" to "All for One".

Valvular heart disease (VHD) is frequently diagnosed in old patients with clinical evidence of heart failure. This elderly population typically presents a high prevalence of frailty and comorbidities, which are associated with increased operative risk for surgical and percutaneous procedures. Recently, the Euro Heart Survey reported a clear gap between treatment guidelines and their application in the "real world". A more realistic approach to the treatment of older VHD patients treatment, mostly if associated with heart failure, is advocated. A multidisciplinary approach, as obtained with the Heart Valve Clinic methodology (intended to put the patient in the "center" of the scene and the specialists "around him"), has been applied in a group of 79 patients, aged >70 years, with symptomatic VHD, divided in 2 groups according to their frailty status (58 robust and 21 frail). No in-hospital mortality and no difference in late mortality and complications were observed. Infections were more frequent (14.3 vs. 1.7 %; P = 0.02) in frail patients. In patients with postoperative complications, serum levels of interleukin 6 (67.6 vs. 49.6; P = 0.01) and of CAF (C-terminal agrin fragment) as sarcopenia marker (67.9 vs. 62.0; P = 0.04) were higher than that in uncomplicated patients. This study was designed to determine the outcomes of the multidimensional geriatric assessment in the management of older patients with heart failure eligible for heart valve surgery. Geriatric assessment and measurement of inflammatory and sarcopenia markers may represent valid tools for a more realistic evaluation of elderly patients with VHD.

[Immunosuppressant treatment in refractory myositis. Our experience]. / La terapia immunosoppressiva nelle miositi refrattarie. Nostra esperienza.

We report our experience of treating polymyositis (PM) and dermatomyositis (DM) with prednisone and immunosuppressants (methotrexate [MTX], cyclophosphamide [CTX], cyclosporine A [CsA], mycophenolate mofetil [MMF] and intravenous immunoglobulins [IVIg]). We revised our series of 63 subjects with primary PM or DM and overlap myositis, diagnosed according to the Bohan and Peter criteria. We used a standardised protocol to evaluate patients, and assess treatment response. Complete remission was achieved in 26, 60, 82, and 85% of subjects treated with MTX, CTX, CsA-IVIg and MMF-IVIg, respectively. Patients receiving CsA or MMF plus IVIg had a significantly higher probability of maintaining complete remission at long-term follow-up than those treated with immunosuppressant alone. In our experience, IVIg as add-on treatment with CsA or MMF is useful in patients with myositis, even those with refractory or relapsed disease. We did not find any increase in the number or type of side effects.