Left ventricle restoration. Keep the door open.

Surgical left ventricle restoration (SVR) was first by Cooley in 1958 with the "linear suture technique," and three decades later, Dor used a circular patch to reconstruct the left ventricle excluding the scarred parts of the septum and ventricular wall. It gained popularity and eventually almost abandoned after the contrasting literature evidence. Hassanabad et al. presented a comprehensive review of current literature on SVR techniques and clinical outcomes, trying to understand if SVR has still a substantial role in the modern medicine.

Impact of valve size, predicted effective and indexed effective orifice area after aortic valve replacement.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of manufacturer labeled prosthesis size and predicted effective orifice area (EOA) on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement is not clear although indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) has been associated with worse survival. METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from Jan 2000-Dec 2019 for prosthesis type, model, and size for isolated aortic valve replacements. Stratified survival was compared between groups and subgroups for labeled valve size, EOA and predicted patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM). RESULTS: A total of 3444 patients were included. Moderate and severe PPM was 15.6% and 1.6%, respectively. Cumulative lifetime hazard was worse for biological valves (mortality: biological 77.7% vs. mechanical 64.8%, p = .001). Moderate prosthetic aortic stenosis (AS), (EOA = 1-1.5 cm2 ) was 12.1% and severe prosthetic AS (EOA ≤ 1 cm2 ) was 0.8%, respectively. Survival was 10.5 ± 0.4 years with moderate to severe prosthetic AS (EOA≤1.5 cm2 ) versus 12.6 ± 0.2 years with mild to no prosthetic AS (EOA>1.5 cm2 ), p = .001. Worse survival in the presence of moderate-severe prosthetic AS was seen with biological valves (9.7 ± 0.4 years vs. 11.2 ± 0.2 years, p = .001 for EOA≤1.5, >1.5 cm2 , respectively). Moderate to severe PPM was associated with worse survival (11.1 ± 0.4 years for iEOA ≤ 0.85 cm2 /m2 vs. 12.5 ± 0.2 years with iEOA > 0.85 cm2 /m2 , p = .001). Moderate to severe PPM predicted worse long term survival (hazard ratio: 3.56; 95% confidence interval: 1.37-9.25; p = .009). CONCLUSION: Predicted prosthetic moderate to severe AS and moderate to severe PPM adversely affect long term survival. Smaller valves are associated with reduced survival.

The Secret behind Extreme Hypoxia Tolerance: A "Slow-Growth" Thoracoabdominal Aneurysm.

A 61-year-old man presented to our institution complaining of back pain. Breathing was comfortable. An arterial blood gas showed extreme hypoxia causing chronic respiratory alkalosis. Further investigations revealed aneurysmal dilatation of the ascending aorta and the Crawford Type II thoracoabdominal aneurysm, with compression of both the left main bronchus and the right pulmonary artery. The patient was managed with a two-stage hybrid surgical approach comprising total arch replacement using the frozen elephant trunk technique followed by endovascular repair.

Early- and mid-term outcomes of reinterventions for aortic bioprosthesis failure.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate early- and mid-term results of our actual practice embedding redo aortic valve replacement and transcatheter procedures for aortic bioprosthetic failure. METHODS: Data for aortic valve reinterventions (redo surgical aortic valve replacement, isolated redo aortic valve replacement, and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transcatheter valve-in-valve procedure) were collected (2010-2019). Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors favouring the choice of transcatheter against redo surgery. Cox analysis was used to study the association of preoperative variables with survival. Survival probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared using a log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were included (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 84 patients, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 41 patients). Median age was 74 [63-80] years, 58% of the patients were male and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 15 [8-26] %. There was no early mortality. Eighteen patients (redo surgical aortic valve replacement: 15, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: 3) sustained at least one postoperative complication. At pre-discharge transthoracic echocardiogram, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation had significantly higher trans-prosthetic gradients (mean gradient: valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation 18 mmHg vs. redo surgical aortic valve replacement 14 mmHg, p < 0.001). Overall survival probabilities were 94% and 73% at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. Previous coronary artery bypass surgery operation and age were independently associated with lower survival probabilities during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Redo surgical aortic valve replacement and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation are both safe and effective for aortic bioprosthetic failure. Further valve-in-valve data are needed to determine the haemodynamic performance of transcatheter prostheses and its impact on long-term outcomes.

Survival and durability of mitral valve repair surgery for degenerative mitral valve disease.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the results after standardized techniques of mitral valve repair (MVr) for treatment of degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) and to analyze risk factors for late outcomes. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-one patients (mean age 63 ± 12 years) underwent MVr between January 1999 and January 2010 for degenerative MR. In the last five years, all repair techniques were performed routinely using annuloplasty prosthetic ring, with or without quadrangular or triangular resection of posterior leaflet and/or edge-to-edge technique as always indicated by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. Mean follow-up (99% complete) was 54 ± 38 (range, 6 to 137) months. RESULTS: Operative mortality was 0.8% (2/261), 10-year actuarial survival 89%± 3%. At 10 years of follow-up freedom from cardiac death was 94%± 2.6%, from reoperation 95%± 2.4%, from thromboembolism 96%± 2.1%, and from endocarditis 100%. Independent predictor of late all-causes mortality was advanced age at operation (71 ± 10 years vs. 62 ± 12 years, p = 0.0068). Late progression to moderate or severe MR was observed in 12/256 patients (4.7%). Independent predictor of late progression to moderate or severe MR was annuloplasty without the use of prosthetic ring (p = 0.04). Reoperation was required in six patients (2.3%). Follow-up echocardiography showed improvement of MR, left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters, left atrial diameter, and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons with preoperative values). CONCLUSIONS: MVr is a low-risk, durable surgical procedure. Standardized techniques, with the routine use of prosthetic ring, improve late results.

Aortic valve replacement with biological prosthesis in patients aged 50-69 years.

OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus regarding the use of biological or mechanical prostheses in patients 50-69 years of age. Previous studies have reported a survival advantage with mechanical valves. Our goal was to compare the long-term survival of patients in the intermediate age groups of 50-59 and 60-69 years receiving mechanical or biological aortic valve prostheses. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients in the age groups 50-59 years (n = 329) and 60-69 years (n = 648) who had a first-time isolated aortic valve replacement between 2000 and 2019. Kaplan-Meier and competing risk analyses were performed to compare survival, incidence of aortic valve reoperation, haemorrhagic complications and thromboembolic events for mechanical versus biological prostheses. RESULTS: Patients aged 50-59 years with a biological prosthesis had a higher probability of aortic valve reintervention (26.3%, biological vs 2.6% mechanical; P < 0.001 at 15 years). The incidence of haemorrhagic complications or thromboembolic events was similar in the 2 groups. Patients aged 60-69 years with a mechanical prosthesis had a higher risk of haemorrhagic complications (6.9%, biological vs 16.2%, mechanical; P = 0.001 at 15 years). Biological prostheses had a higher overall probability of reintervention for valve dysfunction (20.9%, biological vs 4.8%, mechanical; P = 0.024). In both age groups, there was no difference in long-term survival between patients receiving a biological or a mechanical prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in long-term survival between mechanical and biological prostheses for both age groups. Mechanical prostheses had a higher risk of bleeding in the 60-69-year group whereas biological valves had higher overall reintervention probability without an impact on long-term survival. It may be safe to use biological valves based on lifestyle choices for patients in the 50-69-year age group.

Outcomes of patients with acute prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic valve endocarditis is burdened by high mortality and morbidity. We reviewed our experience in the management of patients with acute prosthetic aortic valve infection and studied the implications and outcomes associated with surgical treatment and medical therapy. METHODS: Data of 118 consecutive patients admitted during the period 2008-2018 with definite acute prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis, and presenting a surgical indication, were retrieved from the hospital database. Univariate and multivariate analysis were undertaken to study the association of preoperative characteristics with hospital mortality and the probability of undergoing a reoperation. Survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: In the overall population, prosthesis dehiscence was independently associated with the possibility of undergoing surgical reoperation, while presentation with embolic stroke was associated with medical treatment. Hospital mortality was 24%, medical treatment was found to be independently associated with early death. One hundred (85%) patients underwent redo procedures; aortic valve replacement was performed in 53 and full root replacement in 47. Postoperative hospital mortality was 17%. Survival at 1-, 5-, and 8-years was 78%, 74%, and 66%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation and recurrent endocarditis was 95% at 8-year follow-up.Hospital mortality in patients who did not receive a redo operation was 61% with a survival rate of 17% at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical mortality after reoperation for prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis is still high but mid-term outcomes are satisfactory. Failure to undertake surgery when indicated is an independent risk factor for early death.

Percutaneous Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Pulmonary and Tricuspid Replacement in Carcinoid Heart Disease.

Surgical valve replacement is the most effective treatment for carcinoid heart disease; however, reoperation for prosthetic valve failure is burdened by high risk. We report the first described percutaneous transcatheter pulmonary and tricuspid valve-in-valve replacement for bioprosthesis degeneration for any reason in a patient with carcinoid heart disease. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

The Role of ECG-Gated CT in Patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve Replacement: New Perspectives in Short- and Long-Term Followup.

The aim of our study was to compare the results of the TTE (transthoracic echocardiography) with the results obtained by the ECG-gated 64 slices CT during the followup of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), after aortic valve replacement; in particular we evaluated the aortic root and the ascending aorta looking for a new algorithm in the followup of these patients. From January 1999 to December 2009 our attention was focused on 67 patients with isolated surgical substitution of aortic valve; after dismissal they were strictly observed. During the period between May and September 2010, these patients underwent their last evaluation, and clinical exams, ECG, TTE, and an ECG-gated-MDCT were performed. At followup TTE results showed an aortic root of 36.7 ± 4 mm and an ascending aorta of 39.6 ± 4.8 mm. ECG- gated CT showed an aortic root of 37.9 ± 5.5 mm and an ascending aorta of 43.1 ± 5.2. The comparison between preoperative and postoperative TTE shows a significant long-term dilatation of the ascending aorta while the aortic root diameter seems to be stable. ECG-gated CT confirms the stability of the aortic root diameter (38.2 ± 5.3 mm versus 37.9 ± 5.5 mm; <0.0001) and the increasing diameter value of the ascending aorta (40.2 ± 3.9 mm versus 43.1 ± 5.2 mm; P = 0.0156). Due to the different findings between CT and TTE studies, ECG-gated CT should no longer be considered as a complementary exam in the followup of patients with BAV, but as a fundamental role since it is a real necessity.