The SARS-CoV-2 infection determines the COVID-19 syndrome characterized, in the worst cases, by severe respiratory distress, pulmonary and cardiac fibrosis, inflammatory cytokine release, and immunosuppression. This condition has led to the death of about 2.15% of the total infected world population so far. Among survivors, the presence of the so-called persistent post-COVID-19 syndrome (PPCS) is a common finding. In COVID-19 survivors, PPCS presents one or more symptoms: fatigue, dyspnea, memory loss, sleep disorders, and difficulty concentrating. In this study, a cohort of 117 COVID-19 survivors (post-COVID-19) and 144 non-infected volunteers (COVID-19-free) was analyzed using pyrosequencing of defined CpG islands previously identified as suitable for biological age determination. The results show a consistent biological age increase in the post-COVID-19 population, determining a DeltaAge acceleration of 10.45 ± 7.29 years (+5.25 years above the range of normality) compared with 3.68 ± 8.17 years for the COVID-19-free population (p < 0.0001). A significant telomere shortening parallels this finding in the post-COVID-19 cohort compared with COVID-19-free subjects (p < 0.0001). Additionally, ACE2 expression was decreased in post-COVID-19 patients, compared with the COVID-19-free population, while DPP-4 did not change. In light of these observations, we hypothesize that some epigenetic alterations are associated with the post-COVID-19 condition, particularly in younger patients (< 60 years).

Objectives Aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with small aortic annulus (diameter ≤21 mm) is considered a challenging scenario because of technical aspects and the high risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). The choice of the appropriate prosthesis is crucial, and at the moment, an ideal device has yet to be identified. We compare clinical and hemodynamic results after AVR with three bioprostheses with different design and characteristics. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 76 consecutive patients from two cardiac surgery centers who underwent AVR (Trifecta = 24; Edwards INTUITY Elite valve system = 26, and Perceval = 26) for severe aortic stenosis between 2013 and 2017. Patients selected were older than 75 years and with an annulus diameter ≤21 mm at preoperative echocardiogram. Reinterventions and combined procedures were excluded. Minimally invasive AVR was performed in 44 (57.8%) patients. Telephonic interview was obtained at 2.9 ± 0.5 years and echocardiographic follow-up at 2.2 ± 0.8 years. Results Clinical outcome was similar in the three groups. At follow-up, Trifecta patients presented significantly higher peak and mean transprosthetic pressure gradients ( P = 0.04 and 0.01). Effective orifice area and left ventricular mass regression were comparable, although an advantage was observed in Perceval patients without reaching the statistical significance. Incidence of moderate ( P = 0.2) and severe PPM ( P = 0.7) was comparable. Conclusions Despite higher postoperative pressure gradients observed with the Trifecta valve, all three prostheses (Trifecta, Edwards INTUITY Elite, and Perceval) have proven to be reliable when implanted in small aortic annuli, with good clinical outcome and favorable left ventricular mass regression.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective Despite conflicting evidence available, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is increasingly used as an alternative to full sternotomy. We sought to compare early outcomes of aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (conventional aortic valve replacement [CAVR]) and upper ministernotomy (MIAVR). Methods We analyzed 297 patients having undergone primary, elective, isolated MIAVR or CAVR between January 2014 and June 2018. Following propensity score matching, 120 patients remained in each group. Results MIAVR required longer bypass (93 ± 26 vs 81 ± 24 minutes, P < 0.01) and operative times (214 ± 39 vs 182 ± 37 minutes, P < 0.01). However, aortic cross-clamp times were comparable (57 ± 17 vs 54 ± 14 minutes for MIAVR and CAVR, respectively, P = 0.14). MIAVR had less 24-hour blood loss (253 ± 204 vs 323 ± 296 mL, P = 0.03), less red blood cells transfusions [1.4 packs (1.1 o 1.9) vs 2.1 packs (1.8 to 2.7), P = 0.01], and shorter assisted ventilation time (7.1 ± 3.3 vs 9.7 ± 3.8 hours, P < 0.01) when compared to CAVR. These results led to significantly shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays for MIAVR patients (2.5 ± 1.3 vs 3.4 ± 1.1 days, P < 0.01 and 6.9 ± 4.1 vs 8.2 ± 4.8 days, P = 0.03, respectively). Thirty-day mortality and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly among groups. Conclusions MIAVR through upper ministernotomy was shown to be as safe and reliable as CAVR. Patient recovery time was improved by shortening mechanical ventilation and reducing blood loss and transfusions. These results may be significant for high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve surgery.

Background Transcatheter aortic valve implantation and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement represent two emerging therapies for patients with intermediate surgical risk and severe aortic stenosis. However, head-to-head comparisons between such novel therapies are lacking. Methods Severe aortic stenosis patients with intermediate surgical risk treated with rapid-deployment valve replacement at our institution were identified and compared with a propensity-matched population of patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Postoperative echocardiographic findings, in-hospital and midterm clinical outcomes were compared. Results We identified 60 patients who received transcatheter ( n = 30) or rapid-deployment ( n = 30) valve replacement. On postoperative echocardiography, freedom from paravalvular regurgitation was higher in the rapid-deployment valve group ( p < 0.001), while postoperative mean transprosthetic gradient was lower in the transcatheter valve group ( p = 0.03). Permanent pacemaker implantation was required more frequently in transcatheter valve patients ( p = 0.01). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was more common in the rapid-deployment valve group ( p = 0.03). Hospital mortality was similarly low in both groups ( p = 0.33). At midterm follow-up, mortality was comparable ( p = 0.42) but the rapid-deployment valve group still had a lower degree of paravalvular regurgitation. Conclusions Transcatheter and rapid-deployment valve replacement are promising treatment options for patients with intermediate surgical risk. These two techniques are associated with specific patterns of prosthesis function and postoperative complications. Further evaluation of the clinical impact of these therapies in this patient population is needed.

Introduction & Backgroundthe SARS-CoV-2 infection determines the COVID-19 syndrome characterized, in the worst cases, by severe respiratory distress, pulmonary and cardiac fibrosis, inflammatory cytokines release, and immunodepression. This condition has led to the death of about 2.15% of the total infected world population so far. Among survivors, the presence of the so-called post-COVID19 syndrome (PPCS) is a common finding. In patients who survived the SARS-CoV-2 infection, overt PPCS presents one or more symptoms such as fatigue, dyspnea, memory loss, sleep disorders, and difficulty concentrating. The pathophysiology of PPCS is currently poorly understood, and whether epigenetic mechanisms are involved in this process is unexplored.Methods & ResultsIn this study, a cohort of 117 COVID19 survivors (post-COVID19) and 144 non-infected volunteers (COVID19-free) were analyzed using pyrosequencing of defined CpG islands previously identified as suitable for biological age determination. Besides, telomere length (TL) and ACE2 and DPP4 receptor expression were determined. The results show a consistent biological age increase in the post-covid population (58,44 ± 14,66 ChronoAge Vs. 67,18 ± 10,86 BioAge, P<0,0001), determining a DeltaAge acceleration of 10,45 ± 7,29 years (+5.25 years above range of normality) compared to 3,68 ± 8,17 years for the COVID19-free population (P<0,0001). A significant telomere shortening parallels this finding in the post-COVID19 cohort compared to COVID19-free subjects (post-COVID19 TL: 3,03 ± 2,39 Kb vs. COVID19-free: 10,67 ± 11,69 Kb; P<0,0001). Additionally, ACE2 expression was decreased in post-COVID19 patients compare to COVID19-free, while DPP-4 did not change.ConclusionIn light of these observations, we hypothesize that some epigenetic alterations are associated with the post-COVID19 condition, particularly in the younger (<60 years). Although the consequences of such modifications on the long-term clinical outcome remain unclear, they might indicate a direction to investigate the pathophysiological basis of the post-COVID19 syndrome.

Objective Clinical benefits of minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery (MIVS) have been reported. Improved postoperative mental status was never analyzed with dedicated psychological tests. In the present study we intend to investigate potential benefits of MIVS for patient psychological well-being, with special attention to the relevance of the patient perception of the chest surgical scar, of the self body image and cosmetic aspects. Methods Between 2016 and 2017, 87 eligible patients, age 66.5 ± 14.5 years, operated on for heart valve surgery, underwent either conventional full sternotomy (CS; n = 48) or MIVS by V-shape hemi-sternotomy approach ( n = 39). Before selection of the surgical approach, patients had undergone preoperative evaluation of their psychological status using Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y (STAI-Y), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) psychological tests. Six months postoperatively, patients filled in dedicated questionnaires to assess their psychological status, quality of life, and subjective perception, thus repeating the above-mentioned tests and adding the Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) v2.0 tests for scar-healing process evaluation. Results No patient died during the study.The 4 post-test scales of psychological well-being (BDI-II P = 0.04, STAI-Y P = 0.04, 2 indices of EQ-5D P = 0.03, P = 0.01) showed significant differences between the MIVS group and CS group, with MIVS-small incision patients having lower level of depression and anxiety symptoms and better quality of life. Mean score differences of scar perception (BIQ and POSAS v2.0) were significant, with MIVS patients having evaluated the scar quality significantly better than CS patients. Conclusions MIVS appears associated with significant esthetical and related psychological benefits, as documented by technical tests. These findings should be considered when selecting the most appropriate technique for heart valve surgery.