The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to determine the effect of jaw relaxation, music and the combination of relaxation and music on postoperative pain after major abdominal surgery during ambulation and rest on postoperative days 1 and 2. Opioid medication provided for pain, following abdominal surgery, does not always give sufficient relief and can cause undesired side effects. Thus, additional interventions such as music and relaxation may provide more complete relief. Previous studies have found mixed results due to small sample sizes and other methodological problems. In a rigorous experimental design, 500 subjects aged 18-70 in five Midwestern hospitals were randomly assigned by minimization to a relaxation, music, relaxation plus music, or control group. Interventions were taught preoperatively and tested postoperatively. The same amount of time was spent with subjects in the control group. Pain was measured with the visual analogue sensation and distress of pain scales. Demographic and surgical variables, and milligrams of parenteral or oral opioids in effect at the time of testing were not significantly different between the groups, nor did they correlate with pain scores. Controlling for pretest sensation and distress, orthogonal a priori contrasts and multivariate analysis of covariance indicated that the three treatment groups had significantly less pain than the controls, (P = 0.028-0.000) which was confirmed by the univariate analysis of covariance (P = 0.018-0.000). Post hoc multivariate analysis revealed that the combination group had significantly less sensation and distress of pain than the control group on all post-tests (P = 0.035-0.000), and the relaxation and music groups had significantly less on all tests (P = 0.022-0.000) except after ambulation. At post ambulation those using relaxation did not have significantly less pain than the controls on both days and those using music did not on day 1, although there were some univariate effects. A corresponding significant decrease in mastery of the interventions from pre to post ambulation suggests the need for reminders to focus on the intervention during this increased activity. Physicians and nurses preparing patients for surgery and caring for them afterward, should encourage patients to use relaxation and music as adjuvants to medication for postoperative pain.

For TF TAVR, the PC approach, when compared to the SC approach, is associated with a shorter hospital LOS and higher rate of direct discharge to home with similar risk of vascular complications, late vascular adverse events, and all-cause mortality at 12 months.

Objectives The objectives of this study were to compare short‐ and intermediate‐term clinical outcomes, procedural complications, TAVR prosthesis hemodynamics, and paravalvular leak (PVL) in stentless and stented groups. Background Valve‐in‐valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical redo for bioprosthetic valve failure. There have been limited data on ViV in stentless surgical valves. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 40 patients who underwent ViV TAVR in prior surgical bioprosthetic valves at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center from October 2014 to September 2017. Eighty percent (32/40) ViV TAVRs were in stentless, while 20% (8/40) were in stented bioprosthetic valves. Results The primary mode of bioprosthetic valve failure for ViV implantation in the stentless group was aortic insufficiency (78%, 25/32), while in the stented group was aortic stenosis (75%, 6/8). The ViV procedure success was 96.9% (31/32) in stentless group and 100% in stented group (8/8). There were no significant differences in all‐cause mortality at 30 days between stentless and stented groups (6.9%, 2/31 versus 0%, 0/8, P = 0.33) and at 1 year (0%, 0/25 versus 0%, 0/5). In the stentless group, 34.4% (11/32) required a second valve compared to the stented group of 0% (0/8). There was a significant difference in the mean aortic gradient at 30‐day follow‐up (12.33 ± 6.33 mmHg and 22.63 ± 8.45 mmHg in stentless and stented groups, P < 0.05) and at 6‐month follow‐up (9.75 ± 5.07 mmHg and 24.00 ± 11.28 mmHg, P < 0.05), respectively. Conclusions ViV in the stentless bioprosthetic aortic valve has excellent procedural success and intermediate‐term results. Our study shows promising data that may support the application of TAVR in stentless surgical aortic valve. However, further and larger studies need to further validate our single center's experience.

Objectives This study aimed to assess the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a novel percutaneous postprocedure closure technique for large arterial sheath removal with the use of two Perclose ProGlide (Abbott Vascular Devices, Redwood City, CA) devices. Background Postprocedural closing of large‐bore arteriotomies using the Perclose system can be difficult given the subsequent inability of the device to capture sufficient wall tissue. Methods Our study was a single‐center retrospective analysis of 22 consecutive patients who underwent large arteriotomy closure via the postclosure technique with a 12–16‐Fr sheath. Efficacy endpoints included successful deployment of the system and hemostasis. Safety endpoints included the incidence of major or minor vascular complications as defined by the Vascular Academic Research Consortium‐2 (VARC‐2) definitions at 30‐day follow‐up. Results The postclosure technique resulted in 100% technical success rate and no postprocedural bleeding or vascular complications. Conclusion Postclosure technique is a safe, highly effective, and feasible percutaneous method to achieve large‐bore arteriotomy hemostasis with low rates of major bleeding or vascular complications and favorable early outcome.

Objectives: The objective was to compare outcomes of redo-aortic valve replacement (AVR) via surgical or transcatheter approach in prior surgical AVR with large percentage of prior stentless surgical AVR.Background: With the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), patients with increased surgical risks now have an alternative to redo surgical AVR (SAVR), known as valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR. Stentless prosthetic aortic valves present a more challenging implantation for ViV-TAVR given the lack of structural frame. Methods:We performed a retrospective study of 173 subjects who have undergone SAVR (N = 100) or ViV-TAVR (N = 73) in patients with prior surgical AVR at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center from 2009 to 2019. Our study received the proper ethical oversight. Results:The average ages in redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVR groups were 58.03 ± 13.86 and 66.57 ± 13.44 years, respectively (p < 0.0001). The redo-SAVR had significantly lower STS (2.78 ± 2.09 and 4.68 ± 5.51, p < 0.01) and Euroscores (4.32 ± 2.98 and 7.51 ± 8.24, p < 0.05). The redo-SAVR group had higher percentage requiring mechanical support (8% vs. 0%, p < 0.05) and vasopressors (53% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001), longer length of stay (13.65 ± 11.23 vs. 5.68 ± 7.64 days, p < 0.0001), and inpatient mortality (16% vs. 2.78%, p < 0.005). At 30-day follow-up, redo-SAVR group had higher rates of acute kidney injury (10% vs. 0%, p < 0.01), however ViV-TAVR group had more new left bundle branch blocks (6.85% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). No significant differences regarding re-hospitalization rates, stroke, or death up to 1-year. Conclusion:Although the ViV-TAVR group had higher risk patients, there were significantly fewer procedural complications, shorter length of stay, and similar mortality outcomes up to 1-year follow-up.