Cardiac Surgery in Nonagenarians Following the TAVI/TMVI Era: A Multicenter 23-Year Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies reporting on the outcome of 90-year-old patients undergoing cardiac surgery are scant in literature; and currently, those regarding the implementation of trans-catheter techniques number even fewer. METHODS: We compared patients aged >89 years operated on between 1998 and 2008 at 8 Italian cardiac surgery centers, with patients of the same age operated on between 2009 and 2021. All of the patients were operated on with "open" surgery, with the exclusion of percutaneous valve repair/implantation procedures. RESULTS: The patients of the two groups (group 98-08-127 patients, and group 09-21-101 patients) had comparable preoperative risk factors in terms of the LogEuroSCORE (98-08: 21.3 ± 6.1 vs. 09-21: 20.9 ± 11.1, p = 0.12). There was a considerable difference in the type of surgery (isolated valve, isolated coronary, and combined surgery, 46.5, 38.5, and 15% vs. 52, 13, and 35% in 98-08 and 09-21, respectively, p = 0.01). Analogous operating durations were recorded (cross-clamp time: 98-08: 46 ± 28 min vs. 09-21: 51 ± 28 min, p = 0.06). The number of packed bypasses was lower in 09-21 (1.3 ± 0.6 vs. 2.4 ± 1.2, p = 0.001). In the postoperative period, there was a statistically significant difference in the 30-day survival in favor of the "more recent" patients (98-08: 17 deaths (13.4%) versus 09-21: 6(5.9%); p = 0.001), also confirmed in the subgroups (12.2% vs. 0% in isolated coronary surgery, p < 0.001; and 12.3% vs. 0% in isolated valve surgery, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Accurate pre-, intra-, and post-operative evaluation/management to reduce biological impacts facilitate significant improvements in the outcomes in nonagenarian patients when compared to the results recorded in previous years.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: short-term efficacy of sutureless compared with stented bioprostheses.

OBJECTIVES: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have been introduced to facilitate the implant process, speed up the operating time and improve haemodynamic performance. The goal of this study was to assess the potential advantages of using sutureless prostheses during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in a large multicentre population. METHODS: From 2011 to 2019, a total of 3402 patients in 11 hospitals underwent isolated aortic valve replacement with minimal access approaches using a bioprosthesis. A total of 475 patients received sutureless valves; 2927 received standard valves. The primary outcome was the incidence of 30-day deaths. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of major complications following procedures performed with sutureless or standard bioprostheses. Propensity matched comparisons was performed based on a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: The annual number of sutureless valve implants increased over the years. The matching procedure paired 430 sutureless with 860 standard aortic valve replacements. A total of 0.7% and 2.1% patients with sutureless and standard prostheses, respectively, died within 30 days (P = 0.076). Cross-clamp times [48 (40-62) vs 63 min (48-74); P = 0.001] and need for blood transfusions (27.4% vs 33.5%; P = 0.022) were lower in patients with sutureless valves. No difference in permanent pacemaker insertions was observed in the overall population (3.3% vs 4.4% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.221) and in the matched groups (3.6% vs 4.7% in the standard and sutureless groups; P = 0.364). CONCLUSIONS: The use of sutureless prostheses is advantageous and facilitates the adoption of a minimally invasive approach, reducing cardiac arrest time and the number of blood transfusions. No increased risk of permanent pacemaker insertion was observed.

Extended hockey stick aortotomy for Perceval valve implantation: How to reshape the aortic root.

The Perceval valve is a true sutureless aortic bioprosthesis. Overall, excellent performances have been demonstrated in terms of hemodynamic outcomes, safety, and versatility of use; furthermore, as a sutureless valve option, it has shown to reduce the surgical burden, shortening the operative times, and simplifying minimally invasive procedures. Since the valve has got a high frame profile, the recommended implantation technique requires a high and transverse aortotomy. In case of unplanned Perceval valve implantation, when an extended aortotomy is required, we have come up with a simple technique to reshape the aortic root before the valve is delivered in place: symmetry is pivotal to prevent folding issues and to improve the annular sealing. Although we discuss an out-of-recommendation use, in our experience that technique has shown to be safe and effective.

Cardiac surgery in the time of the novel coronavirus: Why we should think to a new normal.

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak a pandemic. At the time of writing, 24 May 2020 more than 5 million individuals have been tested positive and the death toll was over 330 000 deaths worldwide. The initial data pointed out the tight bond between cardiovascular diseases and worse health outcomes in COVID19-patients. Epidemiologically speaking, there is an overlap between the age-groups more affected by COVID-related death and the age-groups in which Cardiac Surgery has its usual base of patients. The Cardiac Surgery Departments have to think to a new normal: since the virus will remain endemic in the society, dedicated pathways or even dedicated Teams are pivotal to treat safely the patients, in respect of the safety of the health care workers. Moreover, we need a keen eye on deciding which pathologies have to be treated with priority: Coronary artery Disease showed a higher mortality rate in patients affected by COVID19, but it is, however, reasonable to think that all the cardiac pathologies affecting the lung circulation-such as symptomatic severe mitral diseases or aortic stenosis-might deserve a priority access to treatment, to increase the survival rate in case of an acquired-Coronavirus infection later on.

Current trends in mitral valve surgery: A multicenter national comparison between full-sternotomy and minimally-invasive approach.

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve surgery (MVS) is evolving. Compared to standard sternotomy (S-MVS), minimally invasive method (Mini-MVS) has been increasingly adopted in the last years with encouraging results for both repairs and replacements. We evaluated trends of surgical approaches and operative outcomes in a multicenter study involving 10 cardiac surgical centers in Italy. METHODS: Patients who received isolated mitral valve surgery, including only a concomitant tricuspid valve repair, from January 2011 up to December 2017. Minimally invasive approach (right anterior mini-thoracotomy) and standard sternotomy was performed in 2602 and 1947 patients, respectively. Stratifying by surgery, 1493 patients per group were paired using a propensity matching procedure. RESULTS: The minimally invasive approach has been progressively more frequent over the years (from 27.5% in 2011 to 71.7% in 2017). Compared to S-MVS, Mini-MVS patients were younger with less preoperative comorbidities and less frequently operated for valve replacement or in association with tricuspid repair. The 30-day mortality was lower in the Mini-MVS (overall 1.2% vs 2.7%; p < 0.001) as well as the incidence of most postoperative complications. Subjects paired by propensity score had similar 30-day mortality (1.9% vs 1.8%, p = 0.786) but lower blood transfusion and permanent pace-maker insertion. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time, initially longer in the Mini-MVS patients, became shorter in recent years for the minimally invasive approach. CONCLUSIONS: In a large multi-institutional recent cohort, minimally invasive mitral valve surgery has drastically increased being the preferred technique and appears to be safe with procedural duration shorter than the beginning.

Full Sternotomy, Hemisternotomy, and Minithoracotomy for Aortic Valve Surgery: Is There a Difference?

BACKGROUND: This study compared perioperative results and mortality rates of different approaches to perform aortic valve replacement (AVR), describing predictors favoring one approach over the others. METHODS: All patients who underwent AVR were enrolled. The choice of the approach was left to surgeon's preference. Data were retrospectively collected, and the major baseline characteristics (including age, sex, body mass index, creatinine clearance, preoperative condition, cardiovascular risk factors, functional status, and left ventricular ejection fraction, etc.) and intraoperative variables were recorded. To adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between the study groups, a propensity score matching was performed. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Partial upper hemisternotomy was performed in 820 patients (43%), right anterior minithoracotomy in 488 (26%), and median sternotomy in 599 (31%). After propensity score matching, three groups of 377 patients were obtained. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were shorter in the right anterior minithoracotomy group than in the median sternotomy and partial upper hemisternotomy groups (p < 0.001). No significant differences in in-hospital mortality were observed (p = 0.9). Renal failure (odds ratio, 5.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 11.4; p < 0.0001), extracardiac arteriopathy (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 6.7; p = 0.017), and left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.93 to 0.99; p = 0.009) emerged as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal-access isolated aortic valve surgery is a reproducible, safe, and effective procedure with similar outcomes and operating times compared with conventional sternotomy.

Right anterior mini-thoracotomy vs. conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched comparison.

BACKGROUND: Right anterior mini-thoracotomy (MIAVR) is a promising technique for aortic valve replacement. We aimed at comparing its outcomes with those obtained in a propensity-matched group of patients undergoing sternotomy at our two high-volume centers. METHODS: Main clinical and operative data of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement between January 2010 and May 2016 were retrospectively collected. A total of 678 patients were treated with a standard full sternotomy approach, while MIAVR was performed in 502. Propensity score matching identified 363 patients per each group. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the propensity-matched groups (1.7% in MIAVR patients vs. 2.2% in conventional sternotomy patients; P=0.79). No significant difference in the incidence of major post-operative complications was observed. Post-operative ventilation times (median 7, range 5-12 hours in MIAVR patients vs. median 7, range 5-12 in conventional sternotomy patients; P=0.72) were not significantly different between the two groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass time (61.0±21.0 vs. 65.9±24.7 min in conventional sternotomy group; P<0.01) and aortic cross-clamping time (48.3±16.7 vs. 53.2±19.6 min in full sternotomy group; P<0.01) were shorter in MIAVR group. EuroSCORE (OR 1.52, 95% CI, 1.12-2.06; P<0.01) was found to be the only independent predictor of intra-hospital mortality in the whole propensity-matched population. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience shows that mini-access isolated aortic valve surgery is a reproducible, safe and effective procedure with similar outcomes and no longer operative times compared to conventional sternotomy.

[Echocardiographic assessment of mitral regurgitation in the perspective of valve repair]. / Valutazione ecocardiografica dell'insufficienza mitralica nella prospettiva della riparazione valvolare.

Echocardiography is the most used imaging technique for the study of patients with mitral regurgitation because of its wide distribution, non-invasiveness and ability to provide diagnostic, functional, hemodynamic and prognostic evaluations. Also, echocardiography can provide essential information on surgical and percutaneous reparability of the regurgitant valve and can guide the surgical and interventional indications relative to valve repair. However, the echocardiographic study is not always appropriately performed in clinical practice and based on a surgery perspective. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to describe how to best use echocardiography for evaluation of patients with mitral regurgitation, highlighting the advantages and limitations of this technique before and after surgical or interventional repair.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation Using Lotus Valve for Failed Surgical Bioprostheses.

BACKGROUND: Patients with failed bioprostheses are an increasing population at high risk for redo surgery. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a promising alternative but a limited number of first-generation devices have proven efficacy in all cases. METHODS: Patients with degenerated bioprostheses at high risk for redo surgery were included in the registry after being assigned to valve-in-valve intervention by a local heart team. Main basal and follow-up data (at 1 month and 6 months) of patients undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Lotus valve system (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) in three high-volume Italian centers were entered in the registry. RESULTS: Twelve patients (aged 71.1 ± 14.1 years, 66% male, logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 28.8 ± 22.9) were included in the registry. Implantation success rate was 92%; in 1 patient, the valve was completely retrieved because of unsatisfactory gradients after valve positioning. All procedures were done through femoral access, and all but one required only local anesthesia. In patients with stenosis as pure or mixed mechanism for degeneration (n = 7), mean ventriculoaortic gradient decreased from 46.7 ± 7.0 mm Hg to 16.6 ± 5.7 mm Hg (p < 0.001). No patients had more than mild aortic regurgitation at hospital discharge. Results where confirmed at 1-month and 6-month follow-up, with improvement of New York Heart Association functional status in all patients (functional class I to II in 100% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: The valve-in-valve procedure using the Lotus valve is a feasible alternative to repeat surgery in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses. Using the Lotus valve in this challenging and increasingly frequent scenario could offer a safe and effective strategy that should be explored in larger clinical trials.

Mini-Bentall: An Interesting Approach for Selected Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive surgery through an upper hemisternotomy for aortic valve replacement has become the routine approach with excellent results. Actually, the same minimally invasive access is used for complex ascending aorta procedures only in few centers. We report our experience with minimally invasive approach for aortic valve and ascending aorta replacement using Bentall technique. METHODS: From January 2010 to November 2015, a total of 238 patients received ascending aorta and aortic valve replacement using Bentall De Bono procedure at our institution. Low- and intermediate-risk patients underwent elective surgery with a minimally invasive approach. The "J"-shaped partial upper sternotomy was performed through a 6-cm skin incision from the notch to the third right intercostal space. Patients who had previous cardiac surgery or affected by active endocarditis were excluded. The study included 53 patients, 44 male (83 %) with a median age of 63 years [interquartile range (IQR), 51-73 years]. A bicuspid aortic valve was diagnosed in 27 patients (51%). RESULTS: A biological Bentall using a pericardial Mitroflow or Crown bioprosthesis implanted in a Valsalva graft was performed in 49 patents. The remaining four patients were treated with a traditional mechanical conduit. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time and median cross-clamp time were respectively 84 (IQR, 75-103) minutes and 73 (IQR, 64-89) minutes. Hospital mortality was zero as well as 30-day mortality. Median intensive care unit and hospital stay were 1.9 and 8 days, respectively. The study population compared with patients treated with standard full sternotomy and similar preoperative characteristics showed similar results in terms of postoperative outcomes with a slightly superiority of minimally invasive group mainly regarding operative times, incidence of atrial fibrillation, and postoperative ventilation times. CONCLUSIONS: A partial upper sternotomy is considered a safe option for aortic valve replacement. Our experience confirms that a minimally invasive approach using a partial upper J-shaped sternotomy can be a safe alternative approach to the standard in selected patients presenting with complex aortic root pathology.

Early outcomes in re-do operation after acute type A aortic dissection: results from the multicenter REAAD database.

This study provides early results of re-operations after the prior surgical treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (AAD) and identifies risk factors for mortality. Between May 2003 and January 2014, 117 aortic re-operations after an initial operation for AAD (a mean time from the first procedure was 3.98 years, with a range of 0.1-20.87 years) were performed in 110 patients (a mean age of 59.8 ± 12.6 years) in seven European institutions. The re-operation was indicated due to a proximal aortic pathology in ninety cases: twenty aortic root aneurysms, seventeen root re-dissections, twenty-seven aortic valve insufficiencies and twenty-six proximal anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. In fifty-eight cases, repetitive surgical treatment was subscripted because of distal aortic pathology: eighteen arch re-dissections, fifteen arch dilation and twenty-five anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. Surgical procedures comprised a total of seventy-one isolated proximals, thirty-one isolated distals and fifteen combined interventions. In-hospital mortality was 19.6 % (twenty-three patients); 11.1 % in patients with elective/urgent indication and 66.6 % in emergency cases. Mortality rates for isolated proximal, distal and combined operations regardless of the emergency setting were 14.1 % (10 pts.), 25.8 % (8 pts.) and 33.3 % (5 pts.), respectively. The causes of death were cardiac in eight, neurological in three, MOF in five, sepsis in two, bleeding in three and lung failure in two patients. A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that risk factors for mortality included previous distal procedure (p = 0.04), new distal procedure (p = 0.018) and emergency operation (p < 0.001). New proximal procedures were not found to be risk factors for early mortality (p = 0.15). This multicenter experience shows that the outcome of REAAD is highly dependent on the localization and extension of aortic pathology and the need for emergency treatment. Surgery in an emergency setting and distal re-do operations after previous AAD remain a surgical challenge, while proximal aortic re-operations show a lower mortality rate. Foresighted decision-making is needed in cases of AAD repair, as the results are essential preconditions for further surgical interventions.

Non-sutureless minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: mini-sternotomy versus mini-thoracotomy: a series of 1130 patients.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement through conventional sternotomy still represents the gold-standard surgical approach for aortic valve disease. However, given the increasing number of patients with comorbidities, strategies that can improve operative results are always sought. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery, although related to a steep learning curve, might be associated with improved postoperative outcomes. The main aim of this study was to assess whether significant differences exist in terms of operative and early results between a mini-sternotomy and a right mini-thoracotomy approach for isolated aortic valve replacement without sutureless technologies. METHODS: This is an observational retrospective multicentre study from nine Italian cardiac centres that analyses prospectively collected data of patients who underwent isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement between January 2010 and December 2014. Two approaches are considered (mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy) and compared in terms of operative and early outcomes. RESULTS: After interrogation of the centralized database, a total of 1130 patients were retrieved (854 mini-sternotomy and 276 mini-thoracotomy). Patients in the mini-sternotomy group had a higher risk profile. There was no difference in terms of early mortality; cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time did not differ significantly between the groups; and a significantly higher number of reoperations for bleeding was observed in the right mini-thoracotomy group. CONCLUSIONS: Both mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy could be performed safely, with low mortality and postoperative morbidity. The mini-thoracotomy approach was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperation for bleeding. Uptake among cardiac centres was low. Sutureless technologies could potentially increase surgical volume by simplifying the mini-thoracotomy procedure.

Minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement.

The operative mortality associated with repeat heart valve surgery is supposedly higher than the mortality associated with the primary operation. However, controversy still surrounds the risk factors and optimal surgical approach for patients requiring repeat cardiac surgery, particularly for those requiring aortic valve replacements (AVR). While the standard approach generally utilizes full sternotomy and peripheral cannulation, alternative approaches such as minimally invasive sternotomy may play an increasingly important role in this field. This study compares the advantages and disadvantages of a minimally invasive approach in redo AVR with the standard approach, highlighting difficulties and potential solutions.

Aortic valve replacement through right minithoracotomy: is it really biologically minimally invasive?

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a right mini-thoracotomy is a procedure developed in the past few years. Currently, the main limits of this technique are longer cardiopulmonary bypass time compared with the standard approach and the need for peripheral cannulation. METHODS: From January 2010 to March 2014, 206 patients underwent an aortic valve replacement using a minimally invasive technique through a right mini-thoracotomy. Mean age was 71.4 ± 12.0 years, and 129 (62.6%) were male. In the first series of 42 patients, the vacuum-assisted venous drainage was obtained percutaneously through the groin. A totally central arterial and venous cannulation was adopted in the subsequent 164 patients. Two hundred patients (97.1%) received a bioprosthesis implanted with three 2-0 Prolene running sutures; a mechanical valve was implanted in six patients. One patient required reoperation. RESULTS: Aortic valve replacement was performed through a 4-6-cm skin incision at the third intercostal space. Overall cardiopulmonary bypass was 64.8 ± 17.2 min, and aortic cross clamping was 51.8 ± 14.9 min. In-hospital mortality was 1.5% (3/206). CONCLUSIONS: Our initial series confirms that aortic valve replacement performed through a right mini-thoracotomy is a safe procedure. When using running sutures, it is possible to obtain cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamping times comparable to those for the standard approach. A central cannulation can be performed easily to avoid groin incisions. In conclusion, we believe that this kind of surgery could really be a biologically minimally invasive approach, rather than just an aesthetic choice.

Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy: A 'New Gold Standard' for Aortic Valve Replacement?

BACKGROUND: Details are provided of the authors' four-year experience with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) through a right mini-thoracotomy, using totally central cannulation. METHODS: Between November 2011 and October 2014, a total of 248 patients (143 males, 105 females; mean age 72.6 ± 11.5 years; range: 29-93 years) underwent isolated AVR through a right anterior mini-thoracotomy with total arterial and venous central cannulation. RESULTS: AVR was performed through a 4- to 6-cm skin incision at the third intercostal space. The overall cardiopulmonary bypass time was 60.4 ± 16.7 min, and the aortic cross-clamp time 47.5 ± 14.1 min. A biological prosthesis was implanted in 242 patients (97.6%), using running sutures. The median intensive care unit and hospital stays were 40.5 h (IQR 24.6) and six days (IQR 6.0), respectively. In-hospital mortality was 1.2% (3/248); among 86 patients operated on during 2014 the hospital mortality was zero. CONCLUSIONS: AVR performed via a right mini-thoracotomy with total central cannulation provided encouraging results. Adequate surgeon experience, in addition to technical expedience, are of utmost importance as demonstrated by the progressive and steady reduction in operating times. This approach may become highly competitive to a standard full sternotomy, and could become the 'new gold standard' for aortic valve surgery in the near future.