Objective: To review current literature evidence on outcomes of cardiac surgery in Jehovah’s Witness patients. Methods: A comprehensive electronic literature search was done from 2010 to 20th August 2020 identifying articles that discussed optimisation/outcomes of cardiac surgery in Jehovah’s Witness either as a solo cohort or as comparative to non-Jehovah’s Witnesses. No limit was placed on place of publication and the evidence has been summarised in a narrative manner within the manuscript. Results: The outcomes of cardiac surgery in Jehovah’s Witness patients has been described, and also compared, to non-Witness patients within a number of case reports, case series and comparative cohort studies. Many of these studies note no significant differences between outcomes of the two groups for a number of variables, including mortality. Pre-, intra and post-operative optimisation of the patients by a multidisciplinary team is important to achieve good outcomes. Conclusion: The use of a bloodless protocol for Jehovah’s Witnesses does not appear to significantly impact upon clinical outcomes when compared to non-Witness patients, and it has even been suggested that a bloodless approach could provide advantages to all patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Larger cohorts and research across multiple centres into the long term outcomes of these patients is required.

Background: Atrial septal defects are a common form of CHD and dependent on the size and nature of atrial septal defects, closure may be warranted. The paper aims to compare outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical repair of atrial septal defects. Methods: A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted. Primary studies were included if they compared both closure techniques. Primary outcomes included procedural success, mortality, and reintervention rate. Secondary outcomes included residual defect and mean hospital stay. Results: A total of 33 studies were included in meta-analysis. Mean total hospital stay was significantly shorter in the transcatheter cohort across both the adult (95% confidence interval, mean difference −4.05 (−4.78, −3.32) p < 0.00001) and paediatric populations (95% confidence interval, mean difference −4.78 (−5.97, −3.60) p < 0.00001). There were significantly fewer complications in the transcatheter group across both the adult (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval, [0.28, 0.72], p < 0.00001) and paediatric cohorts (odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval, [0.14, 0.49], p < 0.00001). No significant difference in overall mortality was found between transcatheter versus surgical closure across the two groups, adult (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval, [0.40, 1.45], p = 0.41), paediatrics (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval, [0.21, 1.83], p = 0.39). Conclusion: Both transcatheter and surgical approaches are safe and effective techniques for atrial septal defect closure. Our study has demonstrated the benefits of transcatheter closure in terms of lower complication rates and mean hospital stay. However, surgery still has a place for more complex closure and, as we have demonstrated, shows no difference in mortality.

Objective: To review current literature evidence on outcomes of minimally invasive double valve surgeries (MIS). Methods: A comprehensive electronic literature search was done from inception to 20th June 2020 identifying articles that discussed outcomes of minimally invasive approach in double valve surgeries either as a solo cohort or as comparative to conventional sternotomies. No limit was placed on time and place of publication and the evidence has been summarized in narrative manner within the manuscript. Results: Majority of current literature reported similar perioperative and clinical outcomes between MIS and conventional median sternotomy; except that MIS has better cosmetic effects and pain control. Nevertheless, minimal invasive techniques are associated with longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times which may have impact on the reported outcomes and overall morbidity and mortality rates. Conclusion: Minimally invasive double valve surgery continues to develop, but scarcity in the literature suggests uptake is slow, possibly due to the learning curve associated with MIS. Many outcomes appear to be comparable to conventional sternotomy. There is need for larger, multi-center, and randomized trial to fully evaluate and establish the early, mid-and long-term morbidity and mortality rates associated with both techniques. K E Y W O R D S cardiac surgery, double valve, minimal access, minimal invasive 1 | INTRODUCTION Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a rapidly evolving technique for valvular pathologies, which has seen an increase in adoption over the last 24 years due to its popularization by Navia and Crosgrove. 1 The conventional median sternotomy (MS) has been the standard approach for decades, due to good exposure of the surgical field and more surgical experience with the technique, but MIS has gained more acceptance. The uptake has been slow in the past, possibly due to the learning curve reported and previous lack of established training programmes, but the outcomes reported have been at least as good, if not better, than MS. 2 In single valve surgery, MIS has been shown to have cosmetic, respiratory and blood product use advantages over MS, amongst many other benefits. 3,4 However, longer operation times have been reported for MIS. 5 In the USA, multiple valve surgery accounts for 3%-25% of all valve surgeries annually, 6 yet few studies have focussed on a minimally invasive approach for double valve surgery, with even less directly comparing MIS to MS. We reviewed the current literature to evaluate the outcomes of a minimally invasive approach to double valve surgery.

No abstract