Background This study aimed to investigate the predictive significance of C‐reactive protein/albumin ratio for postoperative atrial fibrillation occurrence in patients who were underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Methods Among 830 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass between January 2016 and February 2020, 137 patients with no prior arrhythmia history were included in this cross sectional study. Results One hundred and thirty‐seven (16.5%) patients developed atrial fibrillation in postoperative period. Patients who experienced postoperative atrial fibrillation were more likely to be older but displayed similar rates of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. For prediction of postoperative atrial fibrillation development, diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and positive likelihood ratio of C‐reactive protein/albumin ratio value (OR: 1.854; confidence interval [CI]: 1.598‐2.142; P < .001) was higher than serum C‐reactive protein and albumin levels. (OR: 1.159; CI: 1.115‐1.201; P < .001; OR: 0.438; CI: 0.258‐0.865; P < .001, respectively). Which means that C‐reactive protein/albumin ratio may detect postoperative atrial fibrillation development better C‐reactive protein itself. Conclusion Based on our results, patients who developed postoperative atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting had significantly higher preoperative C‐reactive protein/albumin ratio levels than patients who remained in normal sinus rhythm in the postoperative period. Also, higher C‐reactive protein/albumin ratio value was one of the independent predictive factors for postoperative atrial fibrillation. Therefore, we concluded that evaluating preoperative C‐reactive protein/albumin ratio value might provide early identification of patients with high risk for postoperative atrial fibrillation.

Background Robotic mitral valve surgery continues to become widespread all over the world in direct proportion to the developing technology. In this study, we aimed to compare the postoperative results of robotic mitral valve replacement and conventional mitral valve replacement. Methods A total of consecutive 130 patients who underwent robotic mitral valve replacement and conventional mitral valve replacement with full sternotomy between 2014 and 2020 were included in our study. All patients were divided into two groups: Group I, with 64 patients who underwent robotic mitral valve replacement and Group II, with 66 patients with conventional full sternotomy. General demographic data (age, gender, body weights, etc.), comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral artery disease, hyperlipidemia, etc.), intraoperative variables (cardiopulmonary bypass times, and cross‐clamp times), postoperative ventilation times, drainage amounts, transfusion amount, inotropic need, revision, arrhythmia, intensive care and hospital stay times, and mortality were analyzed retrospectively. Results There was no significant difference between demographic data, such as age, gender, body kit index, and preoperative comorbid factors of both patient groups (p > .05). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (204.12 ± 45.8 min) in Group I was significantly higher than Group II (98.23 ± 17.8 min) (p < .001). Cross‐clamp time in Group I (143 ± 27.4 min) was significantly higher than Group II (69 ± 15.2 min) (p < .001). Drainage amount in Group I (290 ± 129 cc) was significantly lower than Group II (561 ± 136 cc) (p < .001). The erythrocyte suspension transfusion requirement was 0.4 ± 0.3 units in Group I; it was 0.9 ± 1.2 units in Group II, and this requirement was found to be significantly lower in Group I (p = .014). While the mean mechanical ventilation time was 5.3 ± 3.9 h in Group I, it was 9.6 ± 4.2 h in Group II. It was significantly lower in Group I (p = .001). Accordingly, intensive care stay (p = .006) and hospital stay (p = .003) were significantly lower in Group I. In the early postoperative period, three patients in Group I and four patients in Group II were revised due to bleeding. In the postoperative hospitalization period, neurological complications were observed in one patient in Group I and two patients in Group II. Two patients in Group I returned to the sternotomy due to surgical difficulties. Two patients died in both groups postoperatively, and there was no significant difference in mortality (p = .97). Conclusion According to conventional methods, robotic mitral valve replacement is an effective and reliable method since total perfusion and cross‐clamp times are longer, drainage amount and blood transfusion need are less, and ventilation time, intensive care, and hospital stay time are shorter.

No abstract

Redo-cardiac surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Although redo surgery are relative contraindications for robotic surgery, robotic redo mitral valve surgery has been performed with endo-aortic occlusion techniques and on fibrillated heart successfully. Beating heart mitral valve surgery is another well-known option for redo cardiac surgery practice. Robotic beating heart surgery is not well-studied before. As a new point of view to robotic reoperation surgery, herein, we aimed to present a case who underwent redo robotic mitral valve replacement combined with dysfunctioned amplatzer plug resection on a beating heart.

Background: Aortic neo-cuspidization (AVNeo) procedure has been adopted by limited centers with the publication of the mid-long term successful results. The aim of this study was to present initial experience of the AVNeo procedure of a single center. Methods: The medical records of 24 patients who underwent AVNeo with or without concomitant cardiac surgery between February 2019 and February 2021 at our tertiary hospital were scanned retrospectively. Results: The mean age of patients was aged 58.21 ± 13.14 years and 16 (66.7%) of them were men. 16 patients were operated on for aortic stenosis (66.67%). Morphology of the aortic valve was tricuspid in 21 (87.5%) and bicuspid in 3 (12.5%) of the patients. Additional cardicac surgery was performed in 13 (54.17%) patients. No patients needed reoperation for bleeding, pacemaker implantations, conversion to classical prosthetic aortic valve replacement, or infective endocarditis. Two patients died due to non-cardiac reasons. Preoperative peak and mean aortic valve pressures improved significantly at 1 st and 6 th months (