No abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the feasibility and clinical course after minimally invasive David procedure compared with those via a conventional median sternotomy. METHODS:One hundred and ninety-two consecutive patients who underwent elective valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) with or without additional cusp repair for aortic regurgitation (n = 17, 8.9%), dilatation of the aortic root (n = 95, 49.5%) or a combination of both pathologies (n = 80, 41.7%) were included. Patients with systemic disorders, such as Marfan's syndrome, and emergency cases were excluded. Assessment of quality of life was performed by modified Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. To minimize baseline differences, a matched pair analysis was conducted. RESULTS:One hundred and seventeen patients (60.9%) received a minimally invasive hemisternotomy (Group 1), 75 patients a conventional median sternotomy (39.1%, Group 2). Patients of Group 1 were significantly younger (56.5 ± 13.6 vs 64.8 ± 11.6, P < 0.001). Understandably, concomitant cardiac procedures were more frequent in Group 2 (n = 7 [6.0%] vs n = 48 [64.0%], P < 0.001). In hospital, mortality was 0.9% in Group 1 (1/117) and 2.7% in Group 2 (2/75; P = 0.562). Blood loss was significantly less in Group 1 (542.6 ± 441.8 vs 996.7 ± 822.6 ml, P < 0.001). Duration of mechanical ventilation (10.2 ± 21.8 vs 26.9 ± 109.0 h, P < 0.001) and ICU-stay (1.9 ± 3.6 vs 3.2 ± 5.6 days, P < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the minimally invasive group, but this differences did not remain after matching. According to SF-36 questionnaire, patients in the minimally invasive group tend to have a higher quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:Minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement can be done safely via an upper partial sternotomy in experienced hands even if additional cusp repair is required.

No abstract

BackgroundCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In high-risk patients, doomed for reoperation the adverse effects of CBP may be more striking. We evaluated the results of reoperative CABG (redo-CABG) by either off-pump (OPCAB) or on-pump (ONCAB). Clinical endpoints were perioperative myocardial infarction, mortality, survival and as the most striking difference between prior studies the quality of life (QoL).MethodsWe performed a prospective, non-randomized assessment for patients who underwent redo-CABG by redo-OPCAB (n = 40) or redo-ONCAB (n = 40) at our institution between January 2007 and December 2010. For evaluation of QoL the SF-36 health survey was used with self-administered assessment.ResultsDuring follow-up 37 of 40 patients were alive in the redo-OPCAB group versus 32 of 40 patients in the redo-ONCAB group (p < 0.05). The shorter operation time, less blood loss, fewer perioperative myocardial infarctions, the higher rate of totally arterial revascularisation and shorter intensive care stay were the significantly beneficial differences for patients in the redo-OPCAB group (p < 0.05). The 3-year survival rate was higher in the redo-OPCAB group with 81 ± 12% versus 63 ± 9%in the redo-ONCAB group. The quality of life survey did not reveal any significant differences between both groups.ConclusionIn conclusion, with our present retrospective study, we could demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the redo-OPCAB technique with even higher 3-year survival rate. Both techniques seem to have similar impact on the outcome of patients.

Hybrid aortic repair using the FET in acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection does not elevate the perioperative risk of mortality and provides excellent aortic remodelling with low distal re-intervention rate in mid-term follow-up.

Objective Median sternotomy is still the standard approach for aortic arch surgery. Minimally invasive techniques promise faster recovery with shorter hospital stay due to thoracic stability, reduced pain, and superior cosmetic results. However, safety is a concern in complex aortic surgery. The aim of our study was to demonstrate that aortic arch surgery via partial upper sternotomy is viable, safe, and equivalent to standard procedure both in terms of its safety and the risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Methods We interrogated our prospectively collected database and identified a total of 21 nonemergent patients operated on at our center between October 2008 and February 2015. Indication for operation was aneurysmatic disease in 18 and aortic dissection in 3 patients. Data were analyzed for in-hospital mortality, stroke, bleeding complications, and acute kidney injury. Results Mean ± standard deviation age of patients was 69.3 ± 14.4 years, 57.1% were female, and mean ± standard deviation logistic EuroSCORE was 17.0 ± 7.2%. Surgery on the aortic arch comprised proximal arch in 9, hemiarch in 9, and total arch replacement plus frozen elephant trunk in 3 patients. Concomitant procedures included aortic root repair in 10, aortic root replacement in 2, and aortic valve replacement in 3 patients. We lost one patient because of septic shock, no stroke occurred, but a transient neurologic deficit in three and a postoperative delirium in four patients. Re-exploration for bleeding was necessary in two patients, and one patient had acute kidney injury. Conclusions Minimally invasive aortic arch surgery via partial upper sternotomy does not increase the risk of morbidity or mortality. Thus, in experienced hands, it is viable, safe, and therefore favorable and as a result should be offered to more patients.

The intraprocedural data were excellent and comparable in the groups, but postoperative outcomes were better in the MECC group. Thus MECC is preferable to CECC even for minimally invasive valve procedures. These findings strongly support a combined strategy of minimally invasive valve operations and minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation.

No abstract