Recognition and management of left atrial dissection during mitral repair.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial dissection (LAtD) is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication of mitral valve surgery. Its management is not well stablished in the literature. However, early recognition through intraoperative TEE and attention to changes in the left atrial free wall during saline leak testing can lead to avoidance of severe complications. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of LAtD detected by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) following mitral valve repair for primary mitral valve regurgitation secondary to degenerative mitral valve disease with MAZE IV procedure for atrial fibrillation. LAtD was noted on TEE as an expanding double density along the wall of the left atrium with a jet originating at the posterior annulus flowing into the LAtD which was repaired. Separation from bypass following LAtD repair was complicated by severe biventricular dysfunction requiring significant inotropic support and placement of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Patient's post-operative course was further complicated by right sided heart failure requiring placement of a right sided impella which was subsequently removed on POD 4. Patient was discharged home on POD 17. Transthoracic echo at 1 month, 3 months demonstrated resolution of the LAtD. A follow up echo at 4 years showed complete resolution of the LAtD with an intact mitral repair, trace mitral regurgitation, and a mean gradient across the repair of 3 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Left atrial dissection is a rare but serious complication of mitral valve surgery. We provide a review of the current literature regarding LAtD, emphasizing the need to consider this complication early during mitral surgery to allow for uncomplicated repair.

Impact of Aortic Atherosclerosis Burden on Outcomes of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Epiaortic ultrasound detects and localizes ascending aortic atherosclerosis. In this analysis we investigated the association between epiaortic ultrasound-based atheroma grade during surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and perioperative adverse outcomes. METHODS: SAVR patients in a randomized trial of 2 embolic protection devices underwent a protocol-defined 5-view epiaortic ultrasound read at a core laboratory. Aortic atherosclerosis was quantified with the Katz atheroma grade, and patients were categorized as mild (grade I-II) or moderate/severe (grade III-V). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate associations between atheroma grade and adverse outcomes, including death, clinically apparent stroke, cerebral infarction on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, delirium, and acute kidney injury (AKI) by 7 and 30 days. RESULTS: Precannulation epiaortic ultrasound data were available for 326 of 383 randomized patients (85.1%). Of these, 106 (32.5%) had moderate/severe Katz atheroma grade at any segment of the ascending aorta. Although differences in the composite of death, stroke, or cerebral infarction on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging by 7 days were not statistically significant, moderate/severe atheroma grade was associated with a greater risk of AKI by 7 days (adjusted odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-5.58; P = .01). At 30 days, patients with moderate/severe atheroma grade had a greater risk of death, stroke, or AKI (adjusted odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.71; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate/severe aortic atherosclerosis was associated with an increased risk of adverse events after SAVR. Epiaortic ultrasound may serve as a useful adjunct for identifying patients who may benefit from strategies to reduce atheroembolic complications during SAVR.

Tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in younger patients: A multicenter analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the long-term survival of patients between the ages of 50 and 65 years who underwent tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of all AVR patients (n = 9388) from 1991 to 2015 among 7 medical centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged 50 to 65 years who underwent isolated AVR. Baseline comorbidities were balanced using inverse probability weighting for a study cohort of 1449 AVRs: 840 tissue and 609 mechanical. The primary end point of the analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation. RESULTS: During the study period, there was a significant shift from mechanical to tissue valves (P < .001). There was no significant difference in major in-hospital morbidity, mortality, or length of hospitalization. Also, there was no significant difference in adjusted 15-year survival between mechanical versus tissue valves (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.13; P = .29), although tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation with a cumulative incidence of 19.1% (95% CI, 14.4%-24.3%) versus 3.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-4.9%) for mechanical valves. The reoperative 30-day mortality rate was 2.4% (n = 2) for the series. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients 50 to 65 years old who underwent AVR, there was no difference in adjusted long-term survival according to prosthesis type, but tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation.

Surgical Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Improves Long-Term Survival: A Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines recommend surgical ablation (SA) at the time of concomitant mitral operations, aortic valve replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and aortic valve replacement plus CABG for patients in atrial fibrillation (AF). The goal of this analysis was to assess the influence of SA on long-term survival. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 20,407 consecutive CABG or valve procedures from 2008 to 2015 among seven centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. Patients undergoing operation with documented preoperative AF were included (n = 2,740). Patients receiving SA were compared with patients receiving no SA. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: The frequency of SA was 23.1% (n = 634), and an increase was seen in the rate of SA over the study period (p < 0.001). Concomitant SA was performed in 16.2% of CABG, 30.6% of valve, and 24.3% of valve plus CABG procedures. A substantial improvement was found in unadjusted survival among patients undergoing SA (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.42 to 0.70). Moreover, no differences were found in postoperative complications. SA did have longer bypass times (p < 0.001) but a shorter overall length of stay (p < 0.001). After risk adjustment, SA patients had an improved 5-year survival (hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.51 to 0.92), and the effect was observed across all operations. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter cohort of patients with AF, concomitant SA resulted in substantially improved long-term survival across patients who underwent CABG, valve, and valve plus CABG. These findings support current guidelines from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons that recommend broader application of concomitant SA.

Comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-world Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial population.

OBJECTIVE: There are no prospective randomized trial data to guide decisions on optimal revascularization strategies for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction. In this analysis, we describe the comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this patient population. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of all CABG (n = 18,292) and PCIs (n = 55,438) performed from 2004 to 2014 among 7 medical centers reporting to the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria from the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial, there were 955 CABG and 718 PCI patients with an ejection fraction ≤ 35% and 2- or 3-vessel disease. Inverse probability weighting was used for risk adjustment. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included rates of 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, and incidence of repeat revascularization. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 4.3 years (range, 1.59-6.71 years). CABG was associated with improved long-term survival compared with PCI after risk adjustment (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.71; P < .01). Although CABG and PCI had similar 30-day mortality rates (P = .14), CABG was associated with a higher frequency of stroke (P < .001) and acute kidney injury (P < .001), whereas PCI was associated with a higher incidence of repeat revascularization (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with reduced ejection fraction and multivessel disease, CABG was associated with improved long-term survival compared with PCI. CABG should be strongly considered in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and multivessel coronary disease.

Coronary Revascularization With Single Versus Bilateral Mammary Arteries: Is It Time to Change?

BACKGROUND: Arterial conduits are preferred to venous conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting because of longer patency. A single internal mammary artery (SIMA) is used routinely. Bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) are used less frequently. We sought to determine whether BIMA were superior to SIMA. METHODS: From our regional registry of consecutive open heart operations, we identified 47,984 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 1992 to 2014. Of the 1,482 BIMA patients, 1,297 were propensity matched to a cohort of SIMA patients. Short-term outcomes were compared using standard statistical techniques. Long-term survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimators and compared using a log-rank test. RESULTS: BIMA patients were younger and had fewer comorbid conditions than SIMA patients. After propensity weighting, BIMA and SIMA patients were well matched. There was no difference in in-hospital outcomes for BIMA versus SIMA patients for mortality (1.2% [n = 15] vs 0.8% [n = 10], p = 0.315), stroke (0.7% [n = 9] vs 0.7% [n = 9), p = 1.000), bleeding (2.2% [n = 28] vs 2.8% [n = 36], p = 0.311), or mediastinitis (0.8% [n = 10] vs 0.9% [n = 12], p = 0.667). The median follow-up was 12 years. Survival was better for BIMA than SIMA (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.91; p < 0.001). Survival curves began to separate after 5 years. At 15 years, the absolute difference in survival was 8.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In a large regional experience, BIMA is associated with no upfront risk of adverse events and improved long-term survival compared with SIMA. Our results indicate that BIMA conduits should be considered more frequently during coronary artery bypass grafting due to their demonstrated survival advantage.

The evolution of minimally invasive cardiac surgery: from minimal access to transcatheter approaches.

The field of minimally invasive cardiac surgery has undergone rapid transformation over recent years. In this review, we provide a summary of the most current evidence supporting the use of minimally invasive aortic and mitral valve replacement techniques, as well as transcatheter approaches for aortic and mitral valve disease. As an adjunct, the use of robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery and hybrid coronary revascularization procedures is discussed. In order to obtain optimal patient outcomes, a collaborative, heart-team approach between cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists is necessary.

Should Diabetes Be a Contraindication to Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Grafting?

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the influence of bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) versus single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting on postoperative morbidity and long-term survival among diabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of 47,984 consecutive CABGs performed from 1992 to 2014 at 7 medical centers was conducted. Among the study population, 1,482 CABGs with BIMA were identified, and 1,297 BIMA patients were propensity-matched to 1,297 SIMA patients. The study cohort for this analysis, drawn from matched data, included 430 diabetic patients: 217 SIMA and 213 BIMA. The primary endpoint was long-term survival. Secondary endpoints included postoperative morbidity, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 9.3 (range, 4.3 to 13.9) years. Among propensity-matched diabetic patients, there was no significant difference in age, body mass index, or major baseline comorbidities. The groups were also well matched on the number of diseased coronary arteries and number of distal anastomoses performed. There was no difference in the rate of mediastinitis or sternal dehiscence (p = 0.503) or in-hospital mortality (p = 0.758) between groups. Both groups had a similar median length of stay of 5 (range, 4 to 7) days. Diabetic patients who received a BIMA had significantly improved long-term survival when compared with SIMA patients (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.98], p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Among diabetics undergoing CABG, use of BIMA grafting does not result in increased in-hospital morbidity or mortality and confers a long-term survival advantage when compared with SIMA grafting. Thus, diabetic patients should be considered for BIMA grafting more frequently.

National Trends and Geographic Variation in Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Use in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to characterize the adoption rate and regional variation in bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) use during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the United States. METHODS: Observational study of 100% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older, continuously enrolled in Parts A and B from 2009 to 2014 (n = 162,860,439). Rates of beneficiaries receiving a BIMA versus single internal mammary artery (SIMA) during CABG are expressed per 1,000 beneficiaries and aggregated by Hospital Referral Region (HRR). An HRR is a validated unit for quantifying regional variation in health care. RESULTS: The absolute national rate of BIMA use declined during the study period from 0.21 claims per 1,000 beneficiaries in 2009 to 0.13 in 2014 (p < 0.001). When indexed to overall CABG volume, no change was seen in the frequency of BIMA use over time (p = 0.883). SIMA use ranged from 1.3 to 8.5 claims per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries, whereas BIMA use ranged from 0 to 1.5 (p < 0.001). A significant correlation was found between regional volume of SIMA use and likelihood of BIMA use (correlation coefficient 0.673, p < 0.001). Although both SIMA and BIMA use correlated with regional volume of diagnostic cardiac catheterization, the correlation was stronger for SIMA use (correlation coefficient 0.962 versus 0.682, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 5 years, no growth was seen in BIMA use among Medicare beneficiaries, and the frequency of BIMA use during CABG remained low. There was significant regional variation in BIMA use, however, which demonstrates opportunity for continued growth of BIMA grafting.

Does Use of Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Grafting Reduce Long-Term Risk of Repeat Coronary Revascularization? A Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have demonstrated that patients receiving bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) conduits during coronary artery bypass grafting have better long-term survival than those receiving a single internal mammary artery (SIMA), data on risk of repeat revascularization are more limited. In this analysis, we compare the timing, frequency, and type of repeat coronary revascularization among patients receiving BIMA and SIMA. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of 47 984 consecutive coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries performed from 1992 to 2014 among 7 medical centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry. Among the study population, 1482 coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries with BIMA were identified, and 1297 patients receiving BIMA were propensity-matched to 1297 patients receiving SIMA. The primary end point was freedom from repeat coronary revascularization. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 13.2 (IQR, 7.4-17.7) years. Patients were well matched by age, body mass index, major comorbidities, and cardiac function. There was a higher freedom from repeat revascularization among patients receiving BIMA than among patients receiving SIMA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.94]; P=0.009). Among the matched cohort, 19.4% (n=252) of patients receiving SIMA underwent repeat revascularization, whereas this frequency was 15.1% (n=196) among patients receiving BIMA (P=0.004). The majority of repeat revascularization procedures were percutaneous coronary interventions (94.2%), and this did not differ between groups (P=0.274). Groups also did not differ in the ratio of native versus graft vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (P=0.899), or regarding percutaneous coronary intervention target vessels; the most common targets in both groups were the right coronary (P=0.133) and circumflex arteries (P=0.093). In comparison with SIMA, BIMA grafting was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality at 12 years of follow-up (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.91]; P=0.001), and there was no difference in in-hospital morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: BIMA grafting was associated with a reduced risk of repeat revascularization and an improvement in long-term survival and should be considered more frequently during coronary artery bypass grafting.

Reduction of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction with transcatheter mitral valve repair.

Many patients with severe mitral regurgitation cannot undergo conventional mitral valve surgery due to prohibitive surgical risk and are candidates for transcatheter repair with an edge-to-edge technique. Prior reports suggest efficacy with this approach for mitral regurgitation due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with left ventricular outflow obstruction. We present a case report of transcatheter mitral valve repair for posterior leaflet prolapse with concomitant left ventricular outflow tract obstruction due to systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve in the absence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Optimal Timing From Myocardial Infarction to Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Hospital Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Whether delaying coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with better outcomes or is an unnecessary use of health care resources is unclear. This study investigated the relationship between MI-to-CABG timing on in-hospital death. METHODS: From the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group (NNE) Cardiac Surgery Registry we identified 3,060 isolated CABG patients with prior MI from 2008 to 2014. We compared in-hospital death by MI-to-CABG timing of less than 1 day, 1 to 2 days, 3 to 7 days, and 8 to 21 days. We adjusted for patient characteristics using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among patients with prior MI, CABG was performed within 1 day for 99 (3.2%), 1 to 2 days for 369 (12.1%), 3 to 7 days for 1,966 (64.3%), and 8 to 21 days for 626 (20.5%) patients. NNE-predicted mortality was similar for patients operated on within 1 day (1.8%), 1 to 2 days (1.8%), and 3 to 7 days (1.9%), but was higher for 8 to 21 days (2.4%) of MI. Crude in-hospital mortality was higher for those with MI-to-CABG time of less than 1 day (5.1%) compared with 1 to 2 days (1.6%), 3 to 7 days (1.6%), and 8 to 21 days (2.7%, p = 0.044). Adjusted in-hospital mortality remained high for less than 1 day (5.4%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 9.4%), and similar for 1 to 2 days (1.8%; 95% CI, 0.4% to 3.1%), 3 to 7 days (1.7%; 95% CI, 1.1% to 2.3%), and 8 to 21 days (2.3%; 95% CI, 1.2% to 3.3%) between MI and CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Patients operated on 1 to 2 days and 3 to 7 days after MI had a similar mortality rate, suggesting it may be possible to reduce the MI-to-CABG interval for some patients without sacrificing outcomes. Patients operated on within 1 day after MI had a higher mortality rate.

The impact of blood conservation on outcomes in cardiac surgery: is it safe and effective?

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence shows that perioperative blood transfusion in cardiac surgery is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and decreased long-term survival. Tolerance of "permissive anemia" is an important element of perioperative blood conservation strategy. The safety of tolerating perioperative anemia has been a significant deterrent for widespread application of blood conservation. This study examines whether blood conservation is equally safe or superior to the common practice of transfusion in cardiac surgery. METHODS: The total study population consisted of 32,449 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass surgery from June 2000 until December 2004 with complete data from 17 institutions in the State of New Jersey. Englewood Hospital and Medical Center (EH) has a well-established blood conservation program. Five hundred eighty-six EH patients (blood conservation cohort) were compared with a propensity score-matched cohort of 586 patients from the other New Jersey institutions (OH-M) representing the common practice of transfusion. Outcomes were classified as very serious complications, serious complications, or neither (no very serious complication or serious complication). Analysis consisted of McNemar tests and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Fewer patients were transfused at EH compared with OH-M (10.6% versus 42.5%; p < 0.0001). Englewood Hospital had 5 (0.8%) deaths versus 15 (2.5%) in the OH-M group (p = 0.02). Of the EH patients, 11.1% experienced a very serious complication or serious complication versus 18.7% in the OH-M cohort (p = 0.0002). Transfusion was associated with an increased risk of an adverse outcome in both cohorts (EH: odds ratio, 7.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.7 to 14.4 versus OH-M: odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.8 to 7.7). CONCLUSIONS: Blood conservation is safe and effective in reducing transfusions. Tolerance of perioperative anemia, which is one of the main components of blood conservation, does not increase the risk of complications or death in cardiac surgery. Avoidance of transfusion reduces the risk of complications. This study further solidifies the relationship between transfusion and adverse outcome in cardiac surgery.