Early and mid-term outcomes after aortic valve intervention in patients with previous stentless or stented bioprostheses.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available concerning comparative outcomes of redo aortic valve interventions, including surgery after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with either stented or stentless bioprostheses. We investigated the comparative outcomes of redo aortic valve interventions, including surgery after AVR with either stented or stentless bioprostheses. METHODS: The cohort consisted of 112 patients who underwent aortic valve intervention for infective endocarditis or structural valve deterioration between 2001 and 2020. One hundred patients received a stented valve (stented group) and 12 patients received a stentless valve (stentless group) during the initial surgery. Early and late outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean [IQR] ages during the current interventions were 66 [54, 77] years in the stented group and 74 [67, 79] years in the stentless group (P = 0.13). In the stented group, aortic valve interventions included redo AVRs with stented valves (n = 54), mechanical valves (n = 26), stentless valves (n = 16), and transcatheter aortic valve implantations (n = 4). In the stentless group, redo AVRs were performed with stented valves (n = 4), mechanical valves (n = 2), stentless valves (n = 1), and transcatheter valve implantations (n = 5). Hospital mortality was observed in 2 (2%) patients in the stented group and 1 (8%) patients in the stentless group (P = 0.29). The 5-year survival was 80.8% [66.8, 88.5] in the stented group and 91.7% [53.9, 98.8] in stentless group. Statistically significant differences in thromboembolisms were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in early and mid-term outcomes (except thromboembolism) after aortic valve interventions were detected between patients with stented and stentless AVRs.

Prothrombin Complex Concentrate in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) has recently emerged as an effective alternative to fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in treating excessive perioperative bleeding. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of PCC administration as first-line treatment for coagulopathy after adult cardiac surgery. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to the end of March 2018 to identify eligible articles. Adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery and receiving perioperative PCC were compared with patients receiving FFP. RESULTS: A total of 861 adult patients from four studies were retrieved. No randomized studies were identified. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) showed that the PCC cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of RBC transfusion (OR, 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45 to 3.40) and units of RBC received (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.90). No differences were observed between the groups for reexploration for bleeding (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.82), chest drain output at 24 hours (OR, 66.36; 95% CI, -82.40 to 216.11), hospital mortality (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.49), stroke (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.56), and occurrence of acute kidney injury (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.12). A trend toward increased risk of renal replacement therapy was observed in the PCC group (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with significant bleeding after cardiac surgery, PCC administration seems to be more effective than FFP in reducing perioperative blood transfusions. No additional risks of thromboembolic events or other adverse reactions were observed. Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the safety of PCC in cardiac surgery definitively.