ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is considered the gold standard for monitoring allograft rejection after heart transplantation. EMB is an invasive procedure that may be performed via a trans-jugular or a trans-femoral approach with a complication rate reported as less than 6%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the complication rate after EMBs in heart recipients and to compare the results of EMBs performed via a trans-jugular or a trans-femoral approach. METHODS: Medical records of heart recipients undergoing EMBs between January 2012 and December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. EMB-related complications were classified as major (death, pericardial effusion, hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade requiring a pericardiocentesis or an urgent cardiac surgery, ventricular arrythmias, permanent atrio-ventricular block requiring permanent pacing, hemothorax, pneumothorax and retroperitoneal bleeding) and minor (de novo tricuspid regurgitation, arrhythmias, coronary artery fistula, vascular access site complications). RESULTS: A total of 1698 EMBs were performed during the study period at our institution in 212 heart recipients. There were 927 (55%) EMBs performed through a trans-jugular approach (TJ group) and 771 (45%) EMBs performed through a trans-femoral approach (TF group). A total of 60 (3.5%) complications were recorded, including nine (0.5%) major complications (six cardiac tamponades, two pneumothorax and one retroperitoneal bleeding) and 51 (3%) minor complications (seven coronary fistulae, five de novo tricuspid regurgitation, four supraventricular arrythmias and thirty-five vascular access site complications). No difference was found in total (38 [4%] vs. 22 [3%]; p = 0.16) and major (6 [1%} vs. 3 [0.4%]; p = 0.65) complications (32 [3%] vs. 19 [2%]; p = 0.23) between the TJ group and the TF group. No difference was found in male sex, age at time of EMB and time from HT between complicated and not complicated EMBs. CONCLUSIONS: EMBs represent a safe procedure with a low risk of complications. In our experience, EMBs performed via a trans-jugular approach are as safe as the trans-femoral approach.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Scanty data are available on 'second cross-clamping' following mitral valve repair in contemporary practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, causes and outcomes of this event in patients referred for mitral repair for severe degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS: The study population included 2318 patients with severe degenerative MR referred for mitral repair. A second cross-clamping was performed in 94 (4%) patients. Causes of the second cross-clamping, revising repair procedures, immediate echocardiographic outcomes and postoperative course were assessed and compared with the 'single cross-clamping cases' (2224 patients used as control). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up information was available for 91 of the 94 second cross-clamping patients (97% complete) (median time 6 years, interquartile range 3-11). RESULTS: The most frequent causes of the second cross-clamping were residual MR >1+/4+ and systolic anterior motion. A residual prolapse was identified in 41 (43.5%) patients, systolic anterior motion in 22 (23.5%), untreated clefts in 14 (15%) and other mechanisms in 17 (18%). Second cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamping times were 36 (range 28-50) and 23 (range 17-34) min, respectively. Hospital mortality was 0% in the second cross-clamping and 0.3% in the control group (P = 0.2). Postoperative complications and length of hospital stay were similar. At discharge, residual MR ≥2+/4+ was 2.1% in the second cross-clamping and 2.7% in the control group (P = 0.99). In the second cross-clamping, at 12 years, the cumulative incidence function of reoperation, recurrent MR ≥3+ and MR ≥2+ with death as competing risk were 5.7 ± 2.5% (95% confidence interval 2-12), 10.3 ± 4.3% (95% confidence interval 3.8-20) and 17 ± 5.2% (95% confidence interval 8-29), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large volume centre for mitral repair, a second cross-clamping is still performed in 3-5% of the patients. Because suboptimal immediate results are associated with impaired late outcomes of mitral reconstruction, a low threshold for a second cross-clamping seems to be justified. If the second repair is carried out with a relatively shorter additional cross-clamping time, mortality and morbidity are not increased and immediate and long-term results are very satisfactory.
