We conclude that IABP-induced pulsatility significantly improves coronary bypass graft flows during nonpulsatile peripheral ECMO.

Objectives Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) via partial upper sternotomy (PUS) for aortic root surgery represents an alternative to the full median sternotomy (FMS). PUS offers less operative trauma. We analyzed the midterm outcome of root replacement (Bentall) or valve‐sparing root replacement (David) via PUS to evaluate the safety of this access. Methods Between November 2011 to April 2017, a total of 47 consecutive patients underwent aortic root surgery with aortic aneurysm and/or localized aortic dissection through Bentall or David operation through PUS mean age (57.9 ± 10.5 years). Bentall operation was performed in 36 patients (77%), whereas 11 patients (23%) received a David procedure. The outcome was carried out in 6‐months, 1‐year, and 2‐years‐follow up. Results Mean operation time was 287.3 ± 72.6 minutes, mean cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time 174 ± 54.8 minutes, mean cross‐clamp time 133 ± 33.1 minutes. Rethoracotomy‐rate was (4.2%). Superficial wound healing disturbance was (2%) and no deep sternal infection or sternum instability occurred. Hospitalization‐and intensive care unit‐stay was 11.8 ± 4.4 and 1.9 ± 1.3 days with a total median ventilation‐time of 10 (IQR 7.5‐13.5) hours. There was no 30‐day‐mortality. After 2 years the total rate of mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and redo surgery was (6.3%, 4.2%, and 4.2%). Conclusions Minimally invasive aortic root surgery via partial upper sternotomy could be a safe alternative to the full median sternotomy. It requires longer operative times but reduces postoperative morbidity with good postoperative outcome.

Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement can be performed safely in a minimal access setting with low complication rates and good haemodynamic results. Therefore, rapid deployment valves are a relevant option in minimal access surgery.

Background Multiple valve surgery is associated with significant higher operative risks. Reduced cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times in multiple valve surgery may potentially be beneficial as they can be considered independent risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality following cardiac surgery. We report first intermediate outcomes of the Edwards Intuity valve system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, United States) in combined procedures Methods Fifty-eight patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement with concomitant mitral valve surgery between January 2014 and November 2017 in our institution. The valve was assessed echocardiographically after 12 months. The median follow-up was 1.7 years with a cumulative follow-up time of 115.3 patient years. Results The mean age was 73.5 ± 6.2 years and the mean logistic Euroscore was 11.6 ± 3.1%. Concomitant mitral valve repair was performed in 43 cases (74.1%), and mitral valve replacement in 15 cases (19.0%). The mean cross-clamp time was 93 ± 21 minutes along with a mean bypass time of 118 ± 24 minutes. All-cause mortality after 30 days was 8.6%. Overall actuarial survival at 1 year was 87.2 ± 4.5% and after 2 years 82.8 ± 5.3%, respectively. Conclusions Rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in multiple valve surgery can be performed safely with good intermediate outcomes in elderly, high-risk patients.

Background We have aimed to analyze early and mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing transapical/transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TA-/TF-TAVI) for aortic stenosis and porcelain aorta (PAo) in our institution. Additionally, we postulated that the TA approach may be associated with a more favorable neurological outcome than the TF approach; hence, a systematic literature review was conducted. Methods Between 2011 and 2017, 15 patients with PAo underwent TA-TAVI and 4 patients with PAo TF-TAVI at our institution. The assessment of PAo was done either intraoperatively after aborted sternotomy or via computed tomography for elective TAVI. We conducted mid-term follow-up. Furthermore, a systematic review was performed to compare the mortality and neurological outcomes of TF and TA-TAVI approaches. Results TA/TF-TAVIs were performed with 100% device success, without paravalvular leakage ≥ 2 and without procedural death. The 30-day mortality/stroke rates were 6.6%/0% in TA-TAVI and 0%/25% in TF-TAVI, respectively. The 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year survival rates were in TA/TF-TAVI 93%/75%, 82%/66.6%, and 50%/0%, respectively.The pooled results derived from the literature review were as follows: The prevalence of PAo in the TAVI population is 9.74%; the mean logistic EuroSCORE is 41.9% in TA-TAVI versus 16.2% in TF-TAVI; the mean 30-day mortality is 5.9% in TA-TAVI versus 6.3% in TF-TAVI, and the mean stroke is 0.8% in TA-TAVI versus 9% in TF-TAVI. Conclusion TA-TAVI shows promising early and mid-term outcomes in patients with PAo. TF-TAVI performed in patients with PAo is likely to be associated with higher rates of stroke than TA-TAVI.

OBJECTIVES Patients scheduled for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) treatment frequently present with concomitant aortic diseases, in which case they are usually considered to be at high interventional risk and, in particular, unable to undergo the transfemoral TAVI approach. Since the establishment of the ‘transfemoral first’ strategy for TAVI, there has been an evidence gap with regard to the outcomes of such patients. We aimed to evaluate the mid-term outcomes after transapical TAVI in patients with diverse aortic diseases. METHODS Fifty-five consecutive elderly patients (78.4 years; standard deviation: 8.6 years) at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis and aortic diseases (porcelain aorta 36%, ascending aneurysm 15%, descending aneurysm 26%, type-B dissection 4%, aortic thrombus 7%, Leriche syndrome 4%, aortic kinking 11%, aortic ulcer 2%, previous aortic operation 20%, aortic elongation/tortuosity 4%) underwent transapical TAVI treatment between January 2011 and November 2019 at our institution. We used the second-and third-generation self- and balloon-expanding valves. The follow-up time was 92.6 patient-years. RESULTS The Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 7% (standard deviation: 4%). The 30-day mortality and all-stroke rates were 6% and 4%, respectively. The median survival time was 24.9 months (95% confidence interval 17.6–32.3). The median time of freedom from a composite of death and cardio-cerebral adverse events was 24.3 months (95% confidence interval 11.9–36.8). The rate of moderate/severe paravalvular leakage was 2%. The pacemaker rate was 10%. No early or late aortic syndrome occurred. CONCLUSIONS Transapical TAVI is a safe method and shows very promising early and mid-term outcomes, without early/late aortic syndrome, in patients with aortic diseases for whom transfemoral TAVI as the first-line transcatheter method might be contraindicated or not feasible.

Objectives Rapid-deployment valves can reduce procedural times and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery. In our institution, more than 500 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods A total of 510 patients underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2017, of whom 270 patients underwent isolated AVR and 240 underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The cumulative follow-up time was 1,444 patient-years, the median follow-up time 2.8 years, respectively Results An early all-cause mortality of 3.5% (n = 18) was seen with a cumulative survival of 91.9 ± 2.2% after 12 months. Mean cross-clamp times were 37 ± 19 minutes for isolated AVR and 93 ± 29 minutes for AVR with concomitant procedures. The rate of new pacemaker implantation was 7.8% (n = 40). No case of structural degeneration occurred in the follow-up. Three (0.6%) cases of endocarditis were registered. Conclusions Rapid deployment AVR can be performed safely with low complication rates and good hemodynamic results. Therefore, the relevance in aortic valve surgery can be stressed.

Introduction: Few data are available about the newest generation surgical bioprosthesis. We aimed to evaluate early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes after using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA). Methods: Between July 2018 and April 2021, 80 patients underwent aortic valve replacement receiving the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve at our institution. Primary outcomes were the composite of early mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes were hemodynamic performances of the valve, paravalvular leakage, and new pacemaker implantation. Results: The mean age of the study population was 60.6 ± 8.3 years. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgery-Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 2.9 ± 1.7%. In 43.7% of the patients, concomitant surgery was performed. The in-hospital mortality, all-stroke, and myocardial infarction rates were 2.5%, 1.2%, and 1.2%, respectively. No valve was explanted and no redo was performed. The mean postoperative trans-prosthetic gradient at discharge was 10.2 ± 4.1 mm Hg. There was no need for new pacemaker implantation. We registered only two cases with minimal (trace) paravalvular leakage. Conclusion: The use of the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve in a young, low-risk population is safe and associated with very good early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes.