The FRANCE TAVI registry provided reassuring data regarding trends in TAVR performance in an all-comers population on a national scale. Nonetheless, given that TAVR indications are likely to expand to patients at lower surgical risk, concerns remain regarding potentially life-threatening complications and pacemaker implantation. (Registry of Aortic Valve Bioprostheses Established by Catheter [FRANCE TAVI]; NCT01777828).

BackgroundThe aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of three different minimally invasive surgical techniques for left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): Port-Access surgery (PA-CABG), minimally invasive direct CABG (MIDCAB) and off-pump totally endoscopic CABG (TECAB).MethodsOver a decade, 160 eligible patients for elective LAD bypass were referred to one of the three techniques: 48 PA-CABG, 53 MIDCAB and 59 TECAB. In MIDCAB group, Euroscore was higher and target vessel quality was worse. In TECAB group, early patency was systematically evaluated using coronary CT scan. During follow-up (mean 2.7 ± 0.1 years, cumulated 438 years) symptom-based angiography was performed.ResultsThere was no conversion from off-pump to on-pump procedure or to sternotomy approach. In TECAB group, there was one hospital cardiac death (1.7%), reoperation for bleeding was higher (8.5% vs 3.7% in MIDCAB and 2% in PA-CABG) and 3-month LAD reintervention was significantly higher (10% vs 1.8% in MIDCAB and 0% in PA-CABG). There was no difference between MIDCAB and PA-CABG groups. During follow-up, symptom-based angiography (n = 12) demonstrated a good patency of LAD bypass in all groups and 4 patients underwent a no LAD reintervention. At 3 years, there was no difference in survival; 3-year angina-free survival and reintervention-free survival were significantly lower in TECAB group (TECAB, 85 ± 12%, 88 ± 8%; MIDCAB, 100%, 98 ± 5%; PA-CABG, 94 ± 8%, 100%; respectively).ConclusionsOur study confirmed that minimally invasive LAD grafting was safe and effective. TECAB is associated with a higher rate of early bypass failure and reintervention. MIDCAB is still the most reliable surgical technique for isolated LAD grafting and the least cost effective.

No abstract

PVI may be useful in automatically and noninvasively detecting the hemodynamic effects of PEEP when V(T) is >8 mL/kg in ventilated and sedated patients with acceptable sensitivity and specificity.

No abstract

Ministernotomy (MS) is an alternative for total sternotomy (TS) in aortic valve replacement. We compared these two approaches for results and adverse effects in a prospective study. From January to December 2000, 100 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement were included in two groups of 50 according to the surgical approach that used MS or TS; one senior surgeon performed all cases in each group. Valvular pathologies were either stenosis or insufficiency. Mean age was 63 +/- 14 years in MS, 67 +/- 12 in TS (p = ns). NYHA class was 2.7 +/- 0.5 in MS, 2.8 +/- 0.6 in TS (p = ns). Left ventricular ejection fraction was 58 +/- 12% in MS, 57 +/- 12% in TS (p = ns). There was a significant difference between MS and TS in aortic cross-clamping (66 +/- 14 min vs 48 +/- 9 min) and cardiopulmonary bypass (88 +/- 18 min vs 69 +/- 10 min, p < 0.01), but not in intervention times (2.8 +/- 0.4 hours vs 2.7 +/- 0.4 hours). Mean intensive care stay was reduced in MS (1.7 +/- 1.6 days vs 2.6 +/- 6 days, p < 0.05). Intubation times (12 +/- 7 hours vs 14 +/- 9 hours), 24 hours bleeding (394 +/- 219 mL vs 465 +/- 318), reintervention for hemostasis (4% vs 2%), rhythmic complications (14% vs 14%), and mortality at 1 month (2% vs 2%) were comparable in MS and TS. In aortic valve surgery, ministernotomy is technically more demanding and needs more time. It is as safe and as effective as conventional sternotomy but its eventual benefits, excepting upon cosmesis, are still to be defined.

Cyclosporine administration at the time of reperfusion protects against reperfusion injury in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery. The clinical benefit of this protection requires confirmation in a larger clinical trial.

Port-Access mitral valve surgery can be a valid alternative to conventional sternotomy and seems to be an important improvement in minimally invasive cardiac surgery.