Myotomy for myocardial bridge utilizing harmonic scalpel.

INTRODUCTION: Myocardial bridge is defined as epicardial coronary arteries that course through the myocardium. While frequently asymptomatic, it can present on a spectrum from stable to life threatening angina. Medical management is often successful, but failure requires stenting or bypass, both of which are inferior to myotomy in appropriate surgical candidates, the former due to morbidity and the later theoretically due to competitive flow. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present an otherwise healthy 50 year old gentleman with myocardial bridge refractory to medical management who was effectively managed via myotomy performed with the harmonic scalpel, enjoying complete relief of previous exertional chest pain. DISCUSSION: Historically, myotomy has been described sharply and with electrocautery. Compared to the harmonic scalpel, these techniques risk poor hemostasis and damage to the underlying left anterior descending artery, not to mention their inefficiency in terms of operative speed. CONCLUSION: In appropriately diagnosed patients, who are also suitable surgical candidates, myotomy, specifically with the harmonic scalpel, has short-term, intra-operative benefits of better hemostasis, protection of underlying left anterior descending artery and heart cavity, and improved operative efficiency. Given the lack of long-term symptomatic data on different myotomy techniques it is difficult to make comparisons of this nature.

Impella in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: History and Current Controversies.

In this review, the authors discuss a brief history of the Impella mechanical circulatory support device, a mechanistic role for the device in the context of the underlying pathophysiology of acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), the current body of literature evaluating its role in AMI-CS, and upcoming efforts to identify a role more clearly for the device in AMI-CS.

Early outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve implantation in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on outcomes in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), as pivotal randomised trials excluded patients with BAV pathology due to anatomic complexity. AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare early outcomes between TAVI and SAVR in patients with BAV stenosis. METHODS: We queried the Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) between 2016 and 2018 to identify adults who underwent TAVI or SAVR for BAV stenosis. The study's primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day and six-month major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We matched both cohorts using propensity score matching, and applied logistic and Cox-proportional hazard regression to compute the odds ratio (OR), the hazard ratio (HR), and the 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Out of 17,068 patients with BAV stenosis, 1,629 (9.5%) patients underwent TAVI and 15,439 (90.5%) underwent SAVR. After propensity score matching (PSM), we found 1,393 matched pairs. Of the matched pairs, 848 had complete six-month follow-ups. In the PSM cohort, TAVI was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.8%, OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13-0.93; p=0.035), and a similar rate of MACE at 30 days (1% vs 1.5%, OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.27-1.58; p=0.343) and at six months (4.2% vs 4.9%, HR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.69; p=0.674), compared with SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: In the propensity score-matched cohort, TAVI was associated with reduced odds of in-hospital mortality and a similar risk of 30-day and six-month MACE, supporting the feasibility of TAVI in BAV patients without a need for concurrent aortic root repair.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) following the United States Food and Drug Administration approval of ViV TAVI in 2015. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate in-hospital, 30-day, and 6-month outcomes of ViV TAVI versus repeat surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients who underwent ViV TAVI or repeat SAVR utilising the Nationwide Readmission Database from 2016 to 2018. Primary outcomes were all-cause readmission (at 30 days and 6 months) and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital stroke, pacemaker implantation, 30-day/6-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and mortality during readmission. Propensity score-matching (inverse probability of treatment weighting) analyses were implemented. RESULTS: Out of 6,769 procedures performed, 3,724 (55%) patients underwent ViV TAVI, and 3,045 (45%) underwent repeat SAVR. ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.90, p=0.026) and a higher rate of 30-day (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% CI: 1.13-1.90, p=0.004) and 6-month all-cause readmission (HR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.14-2.10, p=0.006) compared with repeat SAVR. All secondary outcomes were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: ViV TAVI was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but higher 30-day and 6-month all-cause readmission. However, there was no difference in risk of in-hospital stroke, post-procedure pacemaker implantation, MACE, and mortality during 30-day and 6-month readmission compared with repeat SAVR, suggesting that ViV TAVI can be performed safely in carefully selected patients.

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with cognitive dysfunction.

IMPORTANCE: The impact of pre-existing cognitive dysfunction on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between dementia and post-TAVR outcomes. DESIGN: Cohort study with propensity-score matching was conducted using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. EXPOSURES: History of dementia at the time of undergoing TAVR. MAIN OUTCOMES: All-cause in-hospital mortality, stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury, post-procedural vascular complications, post-procedural pacemaker implantation, length of stay, in-hospital delirium, and discharge disposition in patients with and without dementia undergoing TAVR. RESULTS: Of 57,805 patients undergoing TAVR, 2910 (5.0%) had a diagnosis of dementia. Propensity-score matching yielded 2895 matched pairs of patients. TAVR was associated with an increased risk of bleeding requiring transfusion (14.7% vs 8.6%, odd ratio (OR) 1.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-2.63]; p < 0.01), discharge to a rehabilitation facility (45.8% vs 31.6%, OR 2.27 [95% CI 1.67-3.08]; p < 0.001), in-hospital delirium (7.4% vs 3.6%, OR 2.13 [95% CI 1.26-3.61]; p < 0.01), increased length of stay (6.75 ± 0.07 days vs 6.11 ± 0.06 days, slope = 1.11 [95% CI 1.03-1.19]; p < 0.01), but comparable in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs 2.6%, OR 1.26 [95% CI 0.57-2.79]; p = 0.57] in patients with dementia compared with patients without dementia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that patients with dementia undergoing TAVR had a longer hospital stay as well as higher rates of discharge to a rehabilitation facility and in-hospital delirium, which may indicate debility and functional decline during hospitalization; however, in-hospital mortality and other outcomes were comparable between the two groups. TAVR candidates should be subjected to a comprehensive geriatric and cognitive assessment to help risk-stratify them for potential post-procedural functional decline. Prospective studies aimed at standardizing cognitive scoring and evaluating the post-procedural quality of life are needed.

Weekend Operation and Outcomes of Patients Admitted for Nonelective Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The "weekend effect" is a purported phenomenon whereby patients admitted for time-sensitive medical and surgical conditions on a weekend suffer worse outcomes than those admitted on a weekday. There are limited data on the weekend effect for nonelective coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: We studied outcomes for weekend vs weekday operations for all adult patients in the 2013 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) undergoing nonelective CABG. RESULTS: Of 101,510 patients undergoing nonelective CABG, 12,795 patients (12.6%) underwent CABG on the day of admission (n = 1230 for weekend and 11,565 for weekday admission, respectively). Patients undergoing surgical procedures on a weekend were more likely to have a diagnosis of ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (47.2% vs 20.2%, P < .001), require intraaortic balloon pump support (46.3% vs 23.1%, P < .001), and undergo same-day coronary angiography (66.7% vs 41.8%; P < .001) or same-day percutaneous coronary intervention (11.8% vs 7.1%; P = .01). Weekend admission was associated with increased mortality in unadjusted analysis (6.1% vs 3.2%; odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.52; P = .02), but this effect was attenuated in the adjusted model (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-2.33; P = .47). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing CABG on a weekend had higher crude mortality but similar risk-adjusted mortality compared with their weekday counterparts. Some of the excess mortality observed for weekend operations is likely attributable to a sicker cohort of patients undergoing CABG on the weekend.