No abstract

Perioperative inflammation is proposed to be involved in the pathogenesis of POAF. Therefore, perioperative assessment of CRP, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 can help clinicians in terms of predicting and monitoring for POAF.

BackgroundThis study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of MIS-AVR among 3 different types of biological heart valves.Material/MethodsComplete data were obtained from 79 patients who underwent MIS-AVR between January 2010 and June 2015. Patients were divided into 3 groups: 27 patients (group A) received Medtronic 3f® (Medtronic Inc., Fridley, MN, USA), 36 patients (group B) received DokimosPlus® (LabCor Laboratórios Ltda., Belo Horizonte, Brazil) and 16 patients (group C) received Perceval® (Sorin Biomedica Cardio S.r.l., Saluggia VC, Italy) valves.Operative and postoperative parameters such as duration of operation, bypass time, duration of ventilation, morbidity, and mortality were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Hemodynamic assessment with transthoracic echocardiography was performed before discharge.ResultsThe EuroSCORE II ranged between 0.67 and 6.94 with no significant difference between the groups. The median operative time was 166 min (range 90–230 min) in total, with significantly shorter times in group C (120 min [range 90–200]). The median total ventilation time was significantly lower in group C and significantly higher in group A. Hemodynamic evaluation demonstrated a mean maximal velocity (vmax) over the aortic valve of 2.3 m/s (range 0.9–4.3 m/s) with average mean and peak pressure gradient values of 10 mmHg (range 3–24 mmHg) and 20 mmHg (range 5–42 mmHg), respectively. Group A showed the highest values for vmax (H>5.99).No significant difference was found regarding duration of hospitalization. Mortality was 3%.ConclusionsIn conclusion, all 3 valves showed good perioperative results, satisfying hemodynamic performance, and low complication rates.

Despite the rapid expansion of transcatheter approaches for aortic valve implantation, the treatment of choice in patients presenting with multiple valvular heart disease remains surgical aortic valve replacement. Nonetheless, it is well known that cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time are important independent predictors of mortality in patients undergoing multivalve procedures (1).Approaches enabling a reduction in ischemia-reperfusion injury during valve procedures are very desirable, especially

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Objectives: Since the first use of ventricular assist devices (VADs) as bridge to recovery and bridge to cardiac transplantation in the early 1990s, significant technological advances have transformed VAD implantation into a routine destination therapy. With improved survival, many patients present for cardiac surgery for conditions not directly related to their permanent mechanical circulatory support. The aim of this study was to analyze the indications and outcomes of non-cardiac surgeries (NCSs) of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients in tertiary center. Material and Methods: We present a single-center experience after 151 LVAD implantations in 138 consecutive patients between 2012–2019 who had to undergo NCS during a follow-up period of 37 +/− 23.4 months on left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Results: A total of 105 procedures was performed in 63 LVAD recipients, resulting in peri-operative mortality of 3.8%. Twenty-five (39.7%) of patients underwent multiple surgeries. We found no significant difference in cumulative survival associated with the performed surgical interventions (p = 0.469). Conclusion: We demonstrated good overall clinical outcomes in LVAD patients undergoing NCS. With acceptable peri-operative mortality, NCS can be safely performed in LVAD patients on long-term support.

No abstract