clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00272675.

The course of early mortality after cardiac surgery differs across interventions and continues up to ∼120 days. Thirty-day mortality reflects only a part of early mortality after cardiac surgery and should only be used for benchmarking of isolated CABG procedures. The follow-up should be prolonged to capture early mortality of all types of interventions.

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVES Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has been performed increasingly for the past 2 decades; however, large comparative studies on short- and long-term outcomes have been lacking. This study aims to compare short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing MIMVS versus median sternotomy (MST) based on real-world data, extracted from the Netherlands Heart Registration. METHODS Patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, with or without tricuspid valve, atrial septal closure and/or rhythm surgery between 2013 and 2018 were included. Primary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality and long-term survival. Propensity score matching analyses were performed. RESULTS In total, 2501 patients were included, 1776 were operated through MST and 725 using an MIMVS approach. After propensity matching, no significant differences in baseline characteristics persisted. There were no between-group differences in 30-day mortality (1.1% vs 0.7%, P = 0.58), 1-year mortality (2.6% vs 2.1%, P = 0.60) or perioperative stroke rate (1.1% vs 0.6%, P = 0.25) between MST and MIMVS, respectively. An increased rate of postoperative arrhythmia was observed in the MST group (31.3% vs 22.4%, P < 0.001). A higher repair rate was found in the MST group (80.9% vs 76.3%, P = 0.04). No difference in 5-year survival was found between the matched groups (95.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.49). Freedom from mitral reintervention was 97.9% for MST and 96.8% in the MIMVS group (P = 0.01), without a difference in reintervention-free survival (P = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS The MIMVS approach is as safe as the sternotomy approach for the surgical treatment of mitral valve disease. However, it comes at a cost of a reduced repair rate and more reinterventions in the long term, in the real-world.

Prophylactic aprotinin therapy has become a popular method to reduce bleeding associated with cardiac operations. Today essentially two dose regimens are used, a high-dose regimen with administration throughout the complete operative procedure and a low-dose regimen with administration only during bypass. In unblinded studies both regimens were found to be equally effective. This double-blind placebo-controlled study in 115 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting was done to confirm these results without potential investigator bias. Intraoperative hemoglobin loss was significantly reduced (p < 0.01) by 42% in the high-dose group and by 17% in the low-dose group compared with loss in control subjects. Blood loss 6 hours after operation was 377 ml in the low-dose and 266 ml in the high-dose group compared with 630 ml in the placebo group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively). The average number of transfusions with packed red blood cells was reduced 31% in the low-dose group and 45% in the high-dose group, but the reductions were not significant. In a subgroup of patients, markers for coagulation and fibrinolysis were studied to investigate whether a different extent of activation existed. Fibrinolysis as measured by D-dimer levels was completely inhibited by the high-dose regimen, but was only partly suppressed in the low-dose group as compared with findings in the placebo group. Thrombin generation during cardiopulmonary bypass as reflected by F1 + 2 levels was lower in patients treated with aprotinin, but the difference was not significant. Concentrations of thrombin inactivated by antithrombin III were not different between the groups. The observation that low-dose aprotinin significantly improved hemostasis but did not inhibit hyperfibrinolysis supports our previous finding that low-dose aprotinin mainly protects platelet adhesive function. The better result obtained with high-dose aprotinin may indicate the contribution of hyperfibrinolysis to bleeding after cardiopulmonary bypass. Because high-dose aprotinin is administered outside the period of full heparinization and might therefore increase the risk of thromboembolic complications, we propose a modification of the low-dose schedule to increase aprotinin levels sufficient for plasmin inhibition before release of the aortic crossclamp.

No abstract

No abstract