Surgical Treatment of Ischemic Dilative Cardiomyopathy by Ventricular Restoration.

Patients with symptomatic post-ischemic dilative myocardiopathy of the left ventricle require, in selected cases, an operation to reshape and reduce the volume of the left ventricular chamber, in addition to surgical myocardial revascularization and mitral valve repair, with the aim of prolonging survival, improving the quality of life and minimizing the need for re-hospitalizations related to recurrent heart failure. This procedure is called surgical ventricular restoration (SVR), and is a useful tool for the treatment of heart failure patients as an alternative to heart transplant. This article provides an overview of surgical ventricular restoration for the treatment of dilative ischemic myocardiopathy. It illustrates several surgical options, describes the operative details, and discusses the correct indications for the procedure. Finally, an interesting protocol for one-step cell therapy during SVR is proposed, as an innovative treatment for heart failure patients.

Coronary Revascularization after Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the selective criteria and short-term follow-up of previous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) trials, the coronary revascularization incidence after TAVI has been difficult to determine. This study investigated the epidemiology of coronary revascularization after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVI in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS), with and without coronary artery disease (CAD), in a mid-term follow-up, single-center, real-world setting. METHODS: Between 2010 to 2020, 1486 patients with AS underwent SAVR or TAVI with balloon-expandable Edwards® transcatheter heart valves (THVs). Using hospital discharge records, we could estimate for each patient resident in Emilia Romagna the rate of ischemic events treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A subgroup without CAD was also analyzed. RESULTS: The 5-year overall survival was 78.2%. Freedom from PCI after AVR and TAVI at 5 years was 96.9% and 96.9%, respectively, with previous PCI as a predictor (HR 4.86, 95% CI 2.57-9.21 p < 0.001). The freedom from PCI curves were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the aged population, the revascularization incidence was only 2.4%, requiring further evaluation even in younger patients with longer follow-up. Despite the profile frame raise due to the evolution of Edwards® balloon-expandable THVs, PCI or coronarography feasibility were not compromised in our population.

Left coronary ostium isolation and aortic valve dysplasia in a young boy: a case report.

Congenital anomalies of the aortic valve represent a common malformation. Infrequently, a dysplastic aortic valve leaflet causes a severe coronary artery anomaly. Here, the case is reported of a malformed aortic valve in which the left rudimentary cusp occluded the left coronary ostium. At surgery the left coronary ostium was completely freed from the anomalous valvular tissue, a Konno operation was performed, and a 19 mm St. Jude Medical mechanical prosthesis was implanted. To date, very few reports have made of this rare malformation; moreover, to the present authors' knowledge this is the only case to have been treated.

Long-term outcomes using the stentless LivaNova-Sorin Pericarbon Freedom™ valve after aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Information on the long-term safety, efficacy and durability of third-generation stentless aortic valves is lacking. METHODS: In this single-centre, single-surgeon retrospective observational study, between 2003 and 2015, consecutive, non-selected aortic valve replacement (AVR) patients were implanted with the LivaNova-Sorin Pericarbon Freedom™, a third-generation stentless aortic xenograft. Changes in clinical and echocardiographic parameters were examined, as were mortality, structural valve deterioration and reoperation, according to age at 5, 10 and 14 years. RESULTS: The mean logistic EuroSCORE was 8.5% in 22 AVR patients (mean age 68.3 years; range 15-89 years). Many patients [n = 139 (43%)] underwent a concomitant procedure. Before AVR, 68.0% of patients were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class I or II, and at discharge, mean gradient was 10.0 ± 4.3 mmHg. Follow-up lasted up to 8.9 ± 2.8 years. At the last follow-up, 95.6% of patients were in New York Heart Association Class I or II, the mean gradient was 8.0 ± 3.5 mmHg (P < 0.001) and reduction in interventricular septum thickness and improvement of ejection fraction were significant (both P < 0.001). Early 30-day in-hospital mortality was 1.6% overall and 0% in the AVR-only population. Overall survival probability was 99.9%, 87.9% and 82.7% at 5, 10 and 14 years. Freedom from structural valve deterioration at 14 years was 67.5%, 88.9% and 68.2% in AVR patients overall, in those aged >70 years and in those aged 60-70 years, respectively. Freedom from reoperation at 14 years was 70.3%, 88.3% and 78.0% in the corresponding groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sorin Pericarbon Freedom is a valuable aortic bioprosthesis with favourable haemodynamics, particularly in smaller annuli, and durability similar to that of stented valves, which make Sorin Pericarbon Freedom a useful option in AVR.