Coronary endarterectomy in coronary artery disease: Factors affecting graft patency and survival.

BACKGROUND: Coronary endarterectomy aims to improve completeness of revascularization in patients with occluded coronary vessels. The benefits of coronary endarterectomy remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate short-term surgical outcomes and factors affecting graft patency post-coronary endarterectomy. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2019, 81 consecutive patients who had coronary endarterectomy done were evaluated for their perioperative and early results. A total of 36 patients with follow-up coronary studies were included in patency analysis. Mortality rates, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and graft patency were outcomes of interest. Survival and risk factor analysis were performed with Kaplan-Meier and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The average age of the cohort was 61.9 ± 9.29 years. Complete revascularization rate was 95.4% post-coronary endarterectomy. The 30-day and 1-year mortality was 2.5 and 6.2%, respectively. One-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rate was 11.1%. Periprocedural myocardial infarction rate was 7.4%. Three patients required repeat revascularization within a mean follow-up duration of 49.6 ± 36.5 months. Overall graft patency was 89.2% at 20.2 months and graft patency post-coronary endarterectomy was 85.4%. Arterial grafts showed 100% patency. Vein grafts to endarterectomized obtuse marginal branch had patency rates of 33.3%. Multiple endarterectomies were associated with worse one-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR: 28.6 ± 1.16; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary endarterectomy facilitates completeness of revascularization and does not increase early mortality. Graft patency post-coronary endarterectomy on obtuse marginal artery was suboptimal. Judicious use of coronary endarterectomy should be practiced to balance the need of completeness of revascularization against the risk of myocardial infarction.

Redo tricuspid valve operation in patients with 1st-generation mitral prostheses.

Background In patients with remarkably enlarged cardiac chambers and history of implantation of older types of mitral valve prosthesis, the considerations for reoperative tricuspid valve surgery are not limited to the risks of sternal reentry but also include the dilemma of whether to carry out prophylactic replacement of the normal functioning but outdated prosthesis or leave it in situ. Methods We reviewed our surgical strategy and postoperative 5-year follow-up findings in two patients who underwent redo tricuspid surgery 3 to 4 decades after mechanical mitral valve replacement. Both patients presented with significant symptoms of progressive right heart failure due to severe tricuspid regurgitation, despite optimal medical therapy. Results We found the beating-heart approach to be an effective and safe method for redo tricuspid surgery. Both first-generation mitral mechanical prostheses were not replaced and have remained well functional upon the patients' postoperative 5-year follow-up, respectively. Conclusion For patients with normal functioning first-generation mechanical mitral prostheses, whether to prophylactically replace the prosthesis should be based on an individualized risk-benefit analysis.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the transaortic approach.

Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation has been established as a safe and effective treatment option for patients at high or prohibitive surgical risk. However, some patients may not be suitable for the transfemoral approach due to severe iliofemoral disease or aneurysmal disease of the thoracoabdominal aorta. The aim of this case series was to evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcomes of the transaortic approach. Methods From May 2015 to June 2016, 5 patients (mean age 78.4 ± 3.9 years) with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis underwent transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation after a heart team discussion. They were considered to be at high surgical risk and ineligible for the transfemoral approach due to iliofemoral or thoracoabdominal aortic disease. Results A CoreValve Evolut R was successfully deployed in all 5 patients. We performed 4 right mini-parasternal incisions and one J-incision partial sternotomy. None of the patients required permanent pacemaker implantation, one required reopening of the mini-parasternal incision for postoperative bleeding. Follow-up echocardiography one month after the procedure showed improvement in the mean aortic gradient (from 63.2 to 8.3 mm Hg) and aortic valve area (from 0.62 to 2.2 cm2). None of the patients had more than mild paravalvular leakage. There was no intraoperative or 30-day mortality. Conclusion Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation is a safe and feasible option for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are considered unsuitable for transfemoral aortic valve implantation.