A survey of cardiac surgeons to evaluate the use of sutureless aortic valve replacement in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is gaining popularity for the treatment of aortic stenosis. We aimed to describe Canadian cardiac surgeons' practice patterns and perceptions regarding SuAVR. METHODS: Content experts (clinicians and methodologists) developed the survey. Domains in the questionnaire include: respondent characteristics, factors influencing the decision to implant a SuAVR, barriers to SuAVR use, and interest in participating in a trial. RESULTS: A total of 66 cardiac surgeons (median duration of practice: 15 years; range 8-20 years) from 18 hospitals across Canada responded to the survey for a response rate of 84%. Surgeons reported that the following patient characteristics increased the likelihood they would choose SuAVR: hostile root (73%), small annular size (55%), high Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score (42%), older age (40%), to support minimally invasive surgery (25%) and redo-operation (23%). The following patient characteristics made surgeons less likely to pursue SuAVR: young age (73%), low STS score (40%), and large annular size (30%). Reported barriers to SuAVR use included: cost (33%), permanent pacemaker risk (27%) and uncertain durability (12%). Of respondents, 73% were interested in participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing SuAVR with transcatheter aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: The primary reasons for surgeons selecting SuAVR were high surgical risk and anatomical challenges. Cost is a primary factor limiting SuAVR use.

Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves in chronic dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have valvular heart disease requiring surgery. The optimal prosthetic valve is not established in this population. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess outcomes of patients with dialysis-dependent ESKD who received mechanical or bioprosthetic valves. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central, Medline and Embase from inception to January 2020. We performed screening, full-text assessment, risk of bias and data collection, independently and in duplicate. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 28 observational studies (n = 9857 patients, including 6680 with mechanical valves and 3717 with bioprosthetic valves) with a median follow-up of 3.45 years. Twenty-two studies were at high risk of bias and 1 was at critical risk of bias from confounding. Certainty in evidence was very low for all outcomes except bleeding. Mechanical valves were associated with reduced mortality at 30 days (relative risk [RR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.97, I 2 = 0, absolute effect 27 fewer deaths per 1000) and at 6 or more years (mean 9.7 yr, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.96, I 2 = 79%, absolute effect 145 fewer deaths per 1000), but increased bleeding (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.46, 95% CI 1.41-4.27, I 2 = 59%, absolute effect 91 more events per 1000) and stroke (IRR 1.63, 95% CI 1.21-2.20, I 2 = 0%, absolute effect 25 more events per 1000). CONCLUSION: Mechanical valves were associated with reduced mortality, but increased rate of bleeding and stroke. Given very low certainty for evidence of mortality and stroke outcomes, patients and clinicians may choose prosthetic valves based on factors such as bleeding risk and valve longevity. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42017081863.

Outcomes of sutureless aortic valve replacement versus conventional aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement, updated systematic review, and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). This study compares the effectiveness of SuAVR to SAVR and TAVR. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2021 for studies evaluating SuAVR, SAVR, and TAVR in adults with aortic stenosis. We performed screening, full-text assessment, data collection, and risk of bias evaluation independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias using by Cochrane and CLARITY's tools, and certainty in evidence using the GRADE framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified one randomized and 78 observational studies (n = 60,689; SuAVR vs. SAVR = 39,171, vs. TAVR = 21,518). All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, with very-low certainty in effect estimates. Compared to TAVR, SuAVR demonstrates no significant difference in mortality at 30-days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.85, 1.16], I2 = 0%), but decreased odds at 2-years (OR: 0.39, 95% CI [0.17, 0.88], I2 = 0%). SuAVR also reduced odds of mild paravalvular regurgitation (OR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.06, 0.21], I2 = 50%). Compared to SAVR, SuAVR was associated with a similar mortality at 30-days (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.85, 1.16], I2 = 0%) and 2-years (OR: 0.99, 95% CI [0.43-2.30], I2 = 7%). SuAVR significantly increased odds of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.5, 95% CI [2.25, 2.77], I2 = 0%). Pooled effect estimates were consistent with results from the randomized trial comparing SuAVR and SAVR. CONCLUSION: Based on very-low quality evidence, SuAVR is associated with similar short- and midterm outcomes compared to TAVR and SAVR. Comparative randomized data with long-term follow-up are required to clarify the role of SuAVR.

Ticagrelor use and practice patterns among Canadian cardiac surgeons.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The P2Y12 platelet receptor inhibitor ticagrelor is widely used in patients following acute coronary syndromes or in those who have received coronary stents. Bentracimab is a monoclonal antibody-based reversal agent that is being formally evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical trial. Here, we probe the knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns of cardiac surgeons regarding their perioperative management of ticagrelor and potential application of a ticagrelor reversal agent. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed by a working group of cardiac surgeons to inquire into participants' practices and beliefs regarding ticagrelor and disseminated to practicing, Canadian-trained cardiac surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 70 Canadian-trained cardiac surgeons participated. Bleeding risk was identified as the most significant consideration when surgically revascularizing ticagrelor-treated patients (90%). There is variability in the duration of withholding ticagrelor before coronary artery bypass graft procedure in a stable patient; 44.3% wait 3 days and 32.9% wait 4 days or longer. Currently, 15.7% of cardiac surgeons prophylactically give platelet transfusions and fresh frozen plasma intraoperatively following protamine infusion in patients who have recently received ticagrelor. Interestingly, 47.1% of surveyed surgeons were aware of a reversal agent for ticagrelor, 91.4% of cardiac surgeons would consider utilizing a ticagrelor reversal agent if available, and 51.4% acknowledged that the introduction of such an agent would be a major advance in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The present survey identified ticagrelor-related bleeding as a major concern for cardiac surgeons. Surgeons recognized the significant unmet need that a ticagrelor reversal agent would address.

Resurgence of the edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a critical review of the application and outcomes of surgical edge-to-edge (E2E) or Alfieri repair for mitral valvulopathy. RECENT FINDINGS: The E2E repair is a surgical technique to address mitral regurgitation, particularly suited when the responsible mechanism is bileaflet prolapse combined with enlarged annular area. It can also be used for a range of mitral valve pathologies. Surgically, the technique has been employed as a bailout for unsuccessful repair including residual mitral regurgitation because of systolic anterior motion (SAM). E2E repair should be accompanied by a ring annuloplasty for long-term repair durability. The simplicity of this approach makes it an ideal strategy during minimally-invasive mitral valve repair. It may also be performed via a transaortic approach at the time of aortic valve surgery to address less-than-severe mitral regurgitation or to address residual SAM following myectomy for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. We review the surgical indication, potential complications including risk of mitral stenosis and the long-term outcomes of E2E repair. SUMMARY: The E2E surgical repair is a simple and effective surgical strategy to address a wide range of mitral regurgitation. This is an important technique in the surgical armamentarium especially in cases of minimally-invasive mitral valve surgery.

Duct stenting versus modified Blalock-Taussig shunt in neonates and infants with duct-dependent pulmonary blood flow: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate whether duct stenting is associated with better survival and other clinical outcomes compared with the modified Blalock-Taussig shunt in infants with duct-dependent pulmonary flow. METHODS: A systematic search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by 4 independent reviewers from inception to March 2019. Meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird method with inverse-variance weighting. The quality of evidence was summarized using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. RESULTS: Six comparative observational studies were included, of which 3 were rated low risk of bias. There was no difference in 30-day mortality between the Blalock-Taussig shunt and duct stenting groups (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-2.27; P = .96; I2 = 0%). However, there was benefit in favor of duct stenting for medium-term mortality (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.99; P = .05; I2 = 0%). Duct stenting demonstrated a reduced risk for procedural complications compared with the Blalock-Taussig shunt (risk ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.81; P = .005; I2 = 0%). However, there was an increased risk for unplanned reintervention for duct stenting (risk ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.26; P < .00001; I2 = 10%). Duct stenting demonstrated shorter mean intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference, -4.69 days; 95% confidence interval, -7.30 to -2.07; P = .0004; I2 = 80%), as well as shorter hospital length of stay (mean difference, -5.78 days; 95% confidence interval, -9.27 to -2.28; P = .0009, I2 = 75%). The overall quality of evidence was rated low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. CONCLUSIONS: Duct stenting demonstrated comparable early mortality, lower medium-term mortality, lower risk of procedural complications, and higher risk of reintervention compared with the Blalock-Taussig shunt.