Comparison of outcomes following transfemoral versus trans-subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve Implantation: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The subclavian artery is an alternative access route for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), with a potential advantage in patients unsuitable for traditional access routes such as the femoral artery. This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of the trans-subclavian (TSc) compared to the trans-femoral (TF) approach. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on two online databases: Embase and Medline. The initial search returned 508 titles. Nine observational studies were included: n = 2938 patients (2382 TF and 556 TSc). RESULTS: Both TSc and TF groups were comparable for: 30-day mortality (Odds ratio, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 - 1.16, p = 0.195); in-hospital stroke (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60-1.85, p = 0.859); myocardial infarction (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.74-5.23, p = 0.176); paravalvular leaks (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.76-1.90, p = 0.439); rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.92-2.41, p = 0.105); in-hospital bleeding and meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference between access points (OR 3.44, 95% CI 0.35-34.22, p = 0.292). Procedural time was found to be longer in the TSc group (SMD 1.02; 95% CI 0.815-1.219, p < 0.001). Major vascular complications were significantly higher in the TF group (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.94, p = 0.029). Meta regression found no influence of the covariates on the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Subclavian access is both a safe and feasible alternative access route for TAVI with lower risks of major vascular complications. This study supports the use of subclavian access as a viable alternative in patient groups where transfemoral TAVI is contraindicated.

BISMICS consensus statement: implementing a safe minimally invasive mitral programme in the UK healthcare setting.

Disseminating the practice of minimally invasive mitral surgery (mini-MVS) can be challenging, despite its original case reports a few decades ago. The penetration of this technology into clinical practice has been limited to centres of excellence, and mitral surgery in most general cardiothoracic centres remains to be conducted via sternotomy access as a first line. The process for the uptake of mini-MVS requires clearer guidance and standardisation for the processes involved in its implementation. In this statement, a consensus agreement is outlined that describes the benefits of mini-MVS, including reduced postoperative bleeding, reduced wound infection, enhanced recovery and patient satisfaction. Technical considerations require specific attention and can be introduced through simulation and/or use in conventional cases. Either endoballoon or aortic cross clamping is recommended, as well as femoral or central aortic cannulation, with the use of appropriate adjuncts and instruments. A coordinated team-based approach that encourages ownership of the programme by the team members is critical. A designated proctor is also recommended. The organisation of structured training and simulation, as well as planning the initial cases, is an important step to consider. The importance of pre-empting complications and dealing with adverse events is described, including re-exploration, conversion to sternotomy, unilateral pulmonary oedema and phrenic nerve injury. Accounting for both institutional and team considerations can effectively facilitate the introduction of a mini-MVS service. This involves simulation, team-based training, visits to specialist centres and involvement of a designated proctor to oversee the initial cases.

Mini-sternotomy vs right anterior thoracotomy for aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: While minimally invasive techniques for aortic valve replacement (AVR) have been shown to be safe, limited data exist comparing the varying approaches. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between two minimally invasive approaches for AVR: mini-sternotomy (MS) and right anterior thoracotomy (RAT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and OVID was conducted for the period 1990-2019. Nine observational studies (n = 2926 patients) met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: There was no difference in operative mortality between MS and RAT (odds ratio [OR]: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.85; P = .709). Meta-analyses favored MS over RAT in reoperation for bleeding (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.28-0.63; P < .001), aortic cross-clamp time (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.12, 95% CI: -0.20 to 0.029; P = .009), and the rate of conversion to sternotomy (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11-0.93; P = .036). The rate of permanent pacemaker insertion approached borderline significance in favor of MS (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.26-1.12; P = .097). In-hospital outcomes of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and surgical site infection were similar between the two groups. The length of hospital stay was shorter for RAT (SMD: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.027-0.22; P = .012) and the length of postoperative ventilation was borderline significant in favor of RAT (SMD: 0.16, 95% CI: -0.027 to 0.34; P = .095). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights important differences in short-term outcomes between MS and RAT as approaches for AVR. This has important implications for patient selection, especially in the elderly, where such approaches are becoming more common-place.

What is the safety and efficacy of the use of automated fastener in heart valve surgery?

INTRODUCTION: Cor-Knot automated fastener has been used as an adjunct in heart valve surgery to eliminate the need for manual tying during valve implantation. Although reduced operative time and facilitation for minimally invasive surgery are clear benefits, whether their use translates to improved patient outcome remains debatable. This study aims to review the safety and efficacy of automated fasteners in heart valve surgeries. METHOD: Specific searches were conducted via online medical databases (Pubmed, Embase, Ovid) between 1950 and June 2019. Longitudinal studies were included that provided operative parameters. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 3773 articles, but only eight met the inclusion criteria and were used for analysis: four studies related to aortic valve replacement (AVR), four related to mitral valve (MV) intervention (total n = 810). The meta-analysis revealed the significantly shorter aortic cross-clamp time in the Cor-knot group compared to manual tying, both in AVR and MV surgeries (P < .05). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter in the Cor-knot group when analyzing studies in MV surgery (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 110.0; 95% confidence interval: 12.3-207.7; P = .027) The use of Cor-Knot did not increase the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, and 30-day mortality. The majority of studies reported no change in the length of intensive unit care and total hospital stay. CONCLUSION: We confirmed that the majority of existing literatures indicated the safety and intraoperative efficacy with automated fastener application. Nevertheless, there is currently no evidence to support automated fastened sutures can translate its intraoperative advantages to improved patient outcome.