Systematic review and meta-analysis of mid-term survival, reoperation, and recurrent mitral regurgitation for robotic-assisted mitral valve repair.

Background: Over the past two decades surgical approaches for mitral valve (MV) disease have evolved with the advent of minimally invasive techniques. Robotic mitral valve repair (RMVr) safety and efficacy has been well documented, however, mid- to long-term data are limited. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive analysis of the available mid- to long-term data for RMVr. Methods: Electronic searches of five databases were performed to identify all relevant studies reporting minimum five-year data on RMVr. Pre-defined primary outcomes of interest were overall survival, freedom from MV reoperation and from moderate or worse mitral regurgitation (MR) at five years or more post-RMVr. A meta-analysis of proportions or means was performed, utilizing a random effects model, to present the data. Kaplan-Meier curves were aggregated using reconstructed individual patient data. Results: Nine studies totaling 3,300 patients undergoing RMVr were identified. Rates of overall survival at 1-, 5- and 10-year were 99.2%, 97.4% and 92.3%, respectively. Freedom from MV reoperation at eight-years post RMVr was 95.0%. Freedom from moderate or worse MR at seven years was 86.0%. Rates of early post-operative complications were low with only 0.2% all-cause mortality and 1.0% cerebrovascular accident. Reoperation for bleeding was low at 2.2% and successful RMVr was 99.8%. Mean intensive care unit and hospital stay were 22.4 hours and 5.2 days, respectively. Conclusions: RMVr is a safe procedure with low rates of early mortality and other complications. It can be performed with low complication rates in high volume, experienced centers. Evaluation of available mid-term data post-RMVr suggests favorable rates of overall survival, freedom from MV reoperation and from moderate or worse MR recurrence.

A Smartphone-Based Model of Care to Support Patients With Cardiac Disease Transitioning From Hospital to the Community (TeleClinical Care): Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or heart failure (HF) are frequently readmitted. This is the first randomized controlled trial of a mobile health intervention that combines telemonitoring and education for inpatients with ACS or HF to prevent readmission. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care [TCC]) in patients discharged after ACS or HF admission. METHODS: In this pilot, 2-center randomized controlled trial, TCC was applied at discharge along with usual care to intervention arm participants. Control arm participants received usual care alone. Inclusion criteria were current admission with ACS or HF, ownership of a compatible smartphone, age ≥18 years, and provision of informed consent. The primary end point was the incidence of unplanned 30-day readmissions. Secondary end points included all-cause readmissions, cardiac readmissions, cardiac rehabilitation completion, medication adherence, cost-effectiveness, and user satisfaction. Intervention arm participants received the app and Bluetooth-enabled devices for measuring weight, blood pressure, and physical activity daily plus usual care. The devices automatically transmitted recordings to the patients' smartphones and a central server. Thresholds for blood pressure, heart rate, and weight were determined by the treating cardiologists. Readings outside these thresholds were flagged to a monitoring team, who discussed salient abnormalities with the patients' usual care providers (cardiologists, general practitioners, or HF outreach nurses), who were responsible for further management. The app also provided educational push notifications. Participants were followed up after 6 months. RESULTS: Overall, 164 inpatients were randomized (TCC: 81/164, 49.4%; control: 83/164, 50.6%; mean age 61.5, SD 12.3 years; 130/164, 79.3% men; 128/164, 78% admitted with ACS). There were 11 unplanned 30-day readmissions in both groups (P=.97). Over a mean follow-up of 193 days, the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in unplanned hospital readmissions (21 in TCC vs 41 in the control arm; P=.02), including cardiac readmissions (11 in TCC vs 25 in the control arm; P=.03), and higher rates of cardiac rehabilitation completion (20/51, 39% vs 9/49, 18%; P=.03) and medication adherence (57/76, 75% vs 37/74, 50%; P=.002). The average usability rating for the app was 4.5/5. The intervention cost Aus $6028 (US $4342.26) per cardiac readmission saved. When modeled in a mainstream clinical setting, enrollment of 237 patients was projected to have the same expenditure compared with usual care, and enrollment of 500 patients was projected to save approximately Aus $100,000 (approximately US $70,000) annually. CONCLUSIONS: TCC was feasible and safe for inpatients with either ACS or HF. The incidence of 30-day readmissions was similar; however, long-term benefits were demonstrated, including fewer readmissions over 6 months, improved medication adherence, and improved cardiac rehabilitation completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001547235; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375945.

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome following open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a variant of cardiovascular autonomic disorder characterised by an excessive heart rate on standing and orthostatic intolerance. We present a rare case of a 38-year-old man who underwent open repair of a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm for a chronic Stanford type B aortic dissection whose recovery was complicated by POTS. He received blood transfusions and was commenced on metoprolol, fludrocortisone and ivabradine with significant improvement in his symptoms. Correct assessment of postoperative tachycardia including postural telemetry is the key to identifying this condition and its successful management.

Is Venoplasty an Alternative to Lead Extraction for Patients With Venous Obstruction?

BACKGROUND: Indications for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have increased over time. Patients may require lead replacement or implantation due to lead failure or need for device upgrade. Venous obstruction is a common finding in these patients and often poses difficulties for operators. Venoplasty as an alternative to lead extraction emerges as an important intervention in the treatment of selected patients, particularly with a view to minimising procedural risk. METHODS: Nine (9) patients with CIED related venous occlusion were treated with venoplasty at our institution between April 2006 and October 2019. Six (6) of nine patients were initially referred to our institution for consideration of transvenous lead extraction in the setting of venous occlusion. These patients are the subjects of the case series. Patient demographics, indication for venoplasty and procedural outcomes were examined. RESULTS: We present a series of six patients in whom venoplasty has been performed at our centre as an alternative to lead extraction. Device and patient characteristics have been examined as well as radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time. The median age of our cohort was 64.5 years (range: 37-81 years) and 67% were female. Luminal calibre was improved in all patients allowing lead replacement, device upgrade or relief of symptoms. Procedural complications were not observed, and all patients remained free of symptoms related to venous occlusion at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We present venoplasty as a viable alternative to lead extraction in high risk patients or in those who favour a less invasive approach.

Long-term outcomes of sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has become a prominent area of research as the medical community evaluate its place amongst other aortic valve interventions. The main advantages of SURD-AVR established to date are the reduced cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, as well as facilitating minimally invasive surgery in high-risk surgical patients. This current systematic review and meta-analysis, to our knowledge, is the first focusing on long-term outcomes regarding safety, efficacy and durability of SURD-AVR from available current literature. METHODS: A literature search via six electronic databases was performed from their inception to November 2019. Inclusion criteria for this systematic review included survival and postoperative echocardiographic outcomes greater than five years in patients who underwent SURD-AVR with either Perceval or Intuity valves. Studies were identified and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Long-term survival outcomes were aggregated using digitized Kaplan-Meier curves where available. RESULTS: After applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, four studies were identified for review. All four studies were observational and in total reported data for 1,998 patients. Almost half (42.4%) of patients underwent SURD-AVR via full sternotomy, with almost one third (30.1%) also undergoing concomitant cardiac procedures. Aggregate overall survival rates at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up were 94.9%, 91.2%, 89.0%, and 84.2%, respectively. Incidence of strokes (4.8%), severe paravalvular leaks (PVLs) (1.5%) and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion (8.2%) at up to 5-year follow-up were acceptable. At 5-year follow-up hemodynamic outcomes were also acceptable for mean pressure gradient (MPG) (range, 8.8-13.6 mmHg), peak pressure gradient (PPG) (range, 18.9-21.1 mmHg) and effective orifice area (EOA) (range, 1.5-1.8 cm2). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the evidence reporting long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR suggests that it is a safe procedure for AVR with low rates of complications. Long-term outcomes presented in this review show that not only does SURD-AVR have acceptable survival rates, but also good hemodynamic performance at 5-year follow-up.