BackgroundAortic stenosis is a frequent valvular disease especially in elderly patients. Catheter-based valve implantation has emerged as a valuable treatment approach for these patients being either at very high risk for conventional surgery or even deemed inoperable. The German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) provides data on conventional and catheter-based aortic procedures on an all-comers basis.Methods and resultsA total of 13 860 consecutive patients undergoing repair for aortic valve disease [conventional surgery and transvascular (TV) or transapical (TA) catheter-based techniques] have been enrolled in this registry during 2011 and baseline, procedural, and outcome data have been acquired. The registry summarizes the results of 6523 conventional aortic valve replacements without (AVR) and 3464 with concomitant coronary bypass surgery (AVR + CABG) as well as 2695 TV AVI and 1181 TA interventions (TA AVI). Patients undergoing catheter-based techniques were significantly older and had higher risk profiles. The stroke rate was low in all groups with 1.3% (AVR), 1.9% (AVR + CABG), 1.7% (TV AVI), and 2.3% (TA AVI). The in-hospital mortality was 2.1% (AVR) and 4.5% (AVR + CABG) for patients undergoing conventional surgery, and 5.1% (TV AVI) and AVI 7.7% (TA AVI).ConclusionThe in-hospital outcome results of this registry show that conventional surgery yields excellent results in all risk groups and that catheter-based aortic valve replacements is an alternative to conventional surgery in high risk and elderly patients.

Severe PPM is rare; moderate PPM is present in a quarter of patients. PPM has a significant impact on short- and long-term mortality after AVR.

Background— Aim of this study was to compare the outcome of beating heart versus conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) strategies in acute coronary syndromes for emergency indications. Methods and Results— 638 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) receiving emergency CABG surgery via midline sternotomy from January 2000 to September 2005 were evaluated. Propensity score analysis was used to predict the probability of undergoing beating heart (BH) (n=240) versus cardioplegic cardiac arrest (CA) (n=398) strategies. Patients presented with stable hemodynamics (n=531) or in cardiogenic shock (CS) (n=107). Hospital and follow-up outcome was compared by propensity score adjusted multiregression analysis. BH included 116 on-pump and 124 off-pump (OPCAB) procedures. There was a propensity to operate CS patients on the beating heart (multivariate odds ratio [OR], 3.8; P =0.001). Under stable hemodynamics significant predictors for BH selection were logEuroSCORE >20% (OR, 2.05), creatinine >1.8 mg/dL (OR, 4.12), complicated percutaneous coronary intervention (OR, 1.88), ejection fraction <30% (OR, 2.64), whereas left main disease (OR, 0.68), circumflex artery (OR, 0.32), and 3-vessel disease (OR, 0.67) indicated preference for cardioplegic arrest. Time from skin incision to culprit lesion revascularization was significantly reduced in BH patients. BH surgery led to a significant benefit in terms of less drainage loss, less transfusion requirement, less inotropic support, shorter ventilation time, lower stroke rate, and shorter intensive care unit stay. In CS, BH was associated with lower incidence of stroke, inotropic support, acute renal failure, new atrial fibrillation and sternal wound healing complications. In CS patients, hospital mortality rate was reduced when using beating heart strategies ( P =0.048). Overall survival, major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular event rate, and repeated revascularization was comparable during a 5-year follow-up. Conclusions— Beating heart strategies are associated with an improved hospital outcome and comparable long-term results for high-risk patients presenting acute coronary syndrome with or without CS.

No abstract