The impact of complete versus partial preservation of the sub-valvular apparatus on left ventricular function in mitral valve replacement.

INTRODUCTION: In mitral valve replacement (MVR), sudden increases in afterload and disruption of the annular-chordal-papillary-left-ventricular wall causes left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in the early postoperative period. Preservation of the posterior mitral leaflet apparatus (MVR-P) has a favorable outcome on LV function. However, there is paucity of data on the impact of complete preservation of the sub-valvular apparatus (MVR-C). OBJECTIVE: We investigated the impact of MVR-P and MVR-C on baseline and 3-months postoperative LV ejection fraction (EF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 29 MVR-P and 19 MVR-C patients with complete echocardiography data at our unit, who were operated between 2008 and 2017. Between-group changes in LVEF and GLS were compared using independent sample T-test. RESULTS: Median age was 59 years (IQR 50-69 years). Baseline LVEF was 58% (51%- 60%). Baseline GLS was -18.4 (-21.2 to -15.5). There were no significant between-group differences between all baseline demographics and echocardiographic markers. There was significantly higher absolute postoperative LVEF in MVR-C patients (p = 0.029). There was also significant worsening in LVEF (p = 0.0121) and GLS (p < 0.0001) after MVR-P and not MVR-C, suggesting no reduction in LV function post-MVR-C but a reduction post-MVR-P. There was significantly less postoperative worsening of GLS per patient in MVR-C group as compared to the MVR-P group (p = 0.023), indicating better preservation of LV function. There was also a smaller decline in LVEF per patient in the MVR-C as compared to the MVR-P group, although not statistically significant (p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: MVR with complete preservation of the sub-valvular apparatus shows a favorable impact on the longitudinal function of the heart at 3 months. Further studies with larger patient numbers are indicated to investigate the long-term results of this surgical approach.

Should more patients be offered repair for mitral valve endocarditis? a single-centre 15-year experience.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the long-term outcomes of mitral valve repair (MVr) versus mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients with native valve infective endocarditis (IE) at a centre with high-repair rates. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study. From 2005 to 2021, 183 patients with active or healed native valve IE were included. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Patient status was last confirmed 31 March 2021. Secondary outcomes were post-operative MR, MV reoperation, length of post-operative intensive care stay and total hospital stay. RESULTS: 85 patients (46.4%) underwent MVr and 98 (53.6%) underwent MVR. Follow-up was 98.9% complete. Mean follow-up time was 5.3 years with 17% of patients reaching a follow-up time of over 10 years. There were 47 deaths (25.7%) within the follow-up period. MVR patients were more likely to have higher logistic EuroSCORE, active IE and were less likely to have elective surgery. In multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, there was no significant difference in long-term mortality between MVr and MVR groups (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval [0.59-2.00]). In Kaplan-Meier analysis, MVR patients had a higher all-cause mortality although there was no significant difference at the endpoint. Propensity score matching analysis showed a significantly higher mortality in the replacement group instead (p = 0.002), Subgroup analysis revealed there remained no significant difference in mortality even in patients with active IE (P-interaction = 0.859) or non-elective surgery (P-interaction = 0.122). MV reoperation (odds ratio 1.00 [0.24-4.12]), post-operative intensive care stay (p = 0.9650) and total hospital stay (p = 0.9144) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrates repair was at least non-inferior to replacement in IE, supporting more aggressive use of repair. There is no reason the general principle of why repair is superior to replacement should not hold in IE, with enough operator expertise. Other experienced units should be encouraged to increase repair rates as feasible in line with current guidelines.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair for the traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken of the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing open vs endovascular repair. Databases were evaluated to July 2018. Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed. The primary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, and 30-day mortality rates; secondary outcomes were requirement for reintervention and 1-year and five-year mortality rates. RESULTS: A total of 1968 patients were analyzed in 21 articles. TEVAR was performed in 29% (n = 578) and open repair in 71% (n = 1390). TEVAR and open repair did not differ in the mean age of patients (42.1 ± 14 years vs 44.1 ± 14 years; P = .48). There was no difference in duration of intensive care and total hospital stay between TEVAR and open repair groups (12.7 ± 11.1 days vs 12.6 ± 8 days [P = .35] and 27.5 ± 14.6 days vs 25.9 ± 11 days [P = .80], respectively). Similarly, no statistically significant difference in postoperative paraplegia or stroke rate was noted between TEVAR and open repair (1.4% vs 2.3% [OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.59-2.70; P = .54] and 1% vs 0.5% [OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.18-2.18; P = .46]). Lower 30-day and 1-year mortality was noted in TEVAR (7.9% vs 20% [OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.92-4.49; P < .00001] and 8.7% vs 17% [OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.99-4.52; P = .05]). There was no difference in 5-year mortality (23% vs 17%; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.20; P = .33). However, there was a higher rate of reintervention at 1 year in the endovascular group (0% vs 6%; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.96; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR carries lower in-hospital mortality and provides satisfactory perioperative outcomes compared with open repair in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. It also provides a favorable 1-year survival at the expense of higher reintervention rates.

The impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol compliance on morbidity from resection for primary lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The adoption of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs in thoracic surgery is relatively recent with limited outcome data. This study aimed to determine the impact of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway on morbidity and length of stay in patients undergoing lung resection for primary lung cancer. METHODS: This prospective cohort study collected data on consecutive patients undergoing lung resection for primary lung cancer between April 2012 and June 2014 at a regional referral center in the United Kingdom. All patients followed a standardized, 15-element Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol. Key data fields included protocol compliance with individual elements, pathophysiology, and operative factors. Thirty-day morbidity was taken as the primary outcome measure and classified a priori according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Logistic regression models were devised to identify independent risk factors for morbidity and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 422 consecutive patients underwent lung resection over a 2-year period, of whom 302 (71.6%) underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Lobectomy was performed in 297 patients (70.4%). Complications were experienced by 159 patients (37.6%). The median length of stay was 5 days (range, 1-67), and 6 patients (1.4%) died within 30 days of surgery. There was a significant inverse relationship between protocol compliance and morbidity after adjustment for confounding factors (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.91; P < .01). Age, lobectomy or pneumonectomy, more than 1 resection, and delayed mobilization were independent predictors of morbidity. Age, lack of preoperative carbohydrate drinks, planned high dependency unit/intensive therapy unit admission, delayed mobilization, and open approach were independent predictors of delayed discharge (length of stay >5 days). CONCLUSIONS: Increased compliance with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathway is associated with improved clinical outcomes after resection for primary lung cancer. Several elements, including early mobilization, appear to be more influential than others.

Aortic Valve Replacement: Are We Spoiled for Choice?

Management of aortic valve disease and, in particular, aortic valve stenosis has evolved through the course of time from medical management and balloon valvuloplasty to the presumed gold-standard surgical intervention. However, with the advent of surgical innovation, intra- and postoperative patients monitoring, understanding of hemodynamic dysfunction, and choices of prosthesis, conventional surgical aortic valve replacements are currently being challenged in particular in moderate- and high-risk patients. Although the long-term results and survival are not robustly available, the durability of the new prosthesis, repair, and the freedom from reoperation remain debatable. In this review, we aim to highlight the surgical innovation attained, choices of aortic valve prosthesis, and also dwell on the current evidence, practice, and trend steered to managing patients with aortic valve stenosis.

The equestrian sport-related injury workload of a regional doctor-led air ambulance unit.

The Great Western Ambulance Service Air Support Unit (ASU) was established in July 2007. The helicopter carries a doctor, providing a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) model of care. Equestrian sport-related injuries account for 6.8% of the unit's total attended case load. Horse riding has a higher rate of severe injury than motorcycle racing and 45% of patients admitted with equestrian injuries require surgical intervention. Orthopaedic injuries to the extremities are commonest, superseding head injuries since the introduction of protective headwear. The majority of equestrian sport-related injuries occur in areas inaccessible to land crews. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the ASU mission database from July 2008 to December 2009 (18 months) and identified 29 patients that were attended to by the ASU. The patient cohort had a female majority with an average age of 31.9. 10 Patients (34.5%) were under the age of 20. The ISS ranged from 1 to 75 (mean, 4.8; median, 1) and injuries to the extremities were commonest. The location of the accident was inaccessible to land ambulance in 55.2% of missions. The average mission time was over 2h. Doctors delivered more advanced (medical) interventions in 20.7% of missions. In 41.4% of missions, there were no such interventions performed by the attending doctor and no access to land ambulance. We therefore conclude that a large proportion of ASU dispatches were due to limited access rather than for the delivery of advanced interventions. However, our results support the opinion that horse riding carries some risk of serious injury and when employed appropriately, HEMS doctors on the ASU are a useful resource for a minority of equestrian sport-related injuries.