Skeletonized or Pedicled Harvesting of Left Internal Mammary Artery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

We sought to compare clinical outcomes in skeletonized versus pedicled left internal mammary artery (LIMA) grafts in elective coronary artery bypass grafting through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Scopus was conducted from inception to January 2020. Only short-term (30 days) studies which compared both techniques have been included in our analysis. Primary outcomes were post anastomosis flow rate and sternal wound infection rate (SWI); secondary outcomes were conduit length, acute myocardial infarction and 30-day mortality. Thirteen articles with a total of 6222 patients met the inclusion criteria. Except for the prevalence of diabetes mellitus being significantly lower in the skeletonized cohort (odds ratio [OR] 0.77 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.61, 0.97], P = 0.03), there were no differences in the preoperative demographics between the 2 groups. The skeletonized LIMA conduit was significantly longer when compared to the pedicled conduit (weighted mean difference -2.64 cm 95% CI [-3.71, -1.56], P < 0.0001). SWI rates were not significantly different in the skeletonized versus pedicled LIMA group (OR 0.71 95% CI [0.47, 1.06], P = 0.10). New onset of acute myocardial infarction and 30-day mortality rate was similar in the 2 groups (OR 1.04 and 0.97, respectively, P > 0.05 in both). The postanastomoses flow rate was higher in skeletonized LIMA (Weighted Mean Difference -11.51 mL/min 95% CI [-20.54, -2.49], P < 0.01). Harvesting the LIMA using the skeletonized technique is associated with higher postanastomosis flow rates and longer conduit lengths; with no difference in SWI and mortality rates when compared to the pedicled technique. We suggest that this technique should be adopted, particularly for BITA harvesting. However, further research is needed to provide clearer indications for both methods.

The Role of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) of Thoracic Aortic Diseases in Patients with Connective Tissue Disorders - A Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: To review the currently available literature to define the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with connective tissue disorders (CTD). METHODS: A comprehensive electronic database search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Google scholar, and OVID to identify all the articles that reported on outcomes of utilizing TEVAR in patients with CTD during elective and emergency settings. The search was not limited to time or language of the published study. RESULTS: All the relevant studies have been summarized in its correspondence section. The outcomes were analyzed in narrative format. The role of TEVAR has been elaborated as per each study. Currently, there is limited large cohort size studies outlining the use of TEVAR in patients with CTD. The use of endovascular repair in patients with CTD is limited due to progressive aortic dilatations and high possibility of further reinterventions at later stage of life. CONCLUSION: Open repair remains the gold standard method of intervention in young patients with progressive CTD, especially in the setting of acute type A aortic dissection. However, TEVAR can be sought as a reliable alternative in emergency setting of diseases involving the descending thoracic aorta; yet the long-term data needs to be published to support such practice.

The role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (tevar) of thoracic aortic diseases in patients with connective tissue disorders - a literature review

Abstract Objective: To review the currently available literature to define the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in patients with connective tissue disorders (CTD). Methods: A comprehensive electronic database search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Google scholar, and OVID to identify all the articles that reported on outcomes of utilizing TEVAR in patients with CTD during elective and emergency settings. The search was not limited to time or language of the published study. Results: All the relevant studies have been summarized in its correspondence section. The outcomes were analyzed in narrative format. The role of TEVAR has been elaborated as per each study. Currently, there is limited large cohort size studies outlining the use of TEVAR in patients with CTD. The use of endovascular repair in patients with CTD is limited due to progressive aortic dilatations and high possibility of further reinterventions at later stage of life. Conclusion: Open repair remains the gold standard method of intervention in young patients with progressive CTD, especially in the setting of acute type A aortic dissection. However, TEVAR can be sought as a reliable alternative in emergency setting of diseases involving the descending thoracic aorta; yet the long-term data needs to be published to support such practice.

The Future of Open Heart Surgery in the Era of Robotic and Minimal Surgical Interventions.

It has been over two decades since the very first robotic cardiac surgery was performed. Over the years, there has been an increase in the demand for less invasive cardiac surgical techniques. Developments in technology and engineering have provided an opportunity for robotic surgery to be applied to a variety of cardiac procedures, including coronary revascularisation, mitral valve surgery, atrial fibrillation ablation, and others. In coronary revascularisation, it is becoming more widely used in single vessel, as well as hybrid coronary artery approaches. Currently, several international centres are specialising in a totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass surgery involving multiple vessels. Mitral valve and other intracardiac pathologies such as atrial septal defect and intracardiac tumour are also increasingly being addressed robotically. Even though some studies have shown good results with robot-assisted cardiac surgery, there are still concerns about safety, cost and clinical efficacy. There are also limitations and additional challenges with the management of cardiopulmonary bypass and myocardial protection during robotic surgery. Implementing novel strategies to manage these challenges, together with careful patient selection can go a long way to producing satisfactory results. This review examines the current evidence behind robotic surgery in various aspects of cardiac surgery.

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.

Long saphenous vein harvesting techniques and their effect on graft patency.

Coronary artery bypass grafting is a key cardiac surgery procedure and is the main treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The most frequently used conduit for this procedure is the long saphenous vein (LSV). The technique of harvesting the LSV has evolved over the last 30 years from total open harvesting to endoscopic with minimal access technique. The most important determining factor for success in coronary artery surgery is the graft patency rate. The literature evidence behind each technique has been reported at different levels and there is an ongoing debate about which technique can provide optimum vein patency over the long term. This literature review aims to summarize the current evidence, the implications involved with the use of each technique for harvesting LSV and the patency rate at variable follow-up intervals.

Management of aortic valve disease during pregnancy: A review.

Cardiovascular disease represents a significant portion of pregnancy-related complications and is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality in this cohort. Cardiac valvulopathy, and aortic valve pathologies, in particular, pose a significant challenge to women who are pregnant and to the health care professionals who look after them. Depending on the type and severity of aortic valve pathology, pregnancy may exacerbate or accelerate the progression of valvulopathy sequelae because of the hemodynamic changes that occur from conception, throughout gestation, up to Labor and postpartum. Management of such patients ranges from basic conservative measures such as bed-rest, extending to high-risk emergency open heart surgery. This nonstructured review aims to highlight the current evidence available relating to the management of aortic valve disease in pregnancy, with a key focus on cases which requires intervention beyond that of medical therapy. In conclusion, the management of aortic valvulopathy in pregnancy is a challenging field with only a small amount of clinical experience and retrospective study supporting evidence-based decisions in this field. A greater understanding of the most recent advances is recommended to support decision making in this specialist field of clinical medicine.