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.

Background Coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poorer outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR). For high-risk patients with complex CAD, combined transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) plus off-pump/minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass (OPCAB/MIDCAB) has been proposed. Methods A prospective registry analysis was performed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR+OP/MIDCAB with those undergoing TAVR plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical AVR plus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2008 and 2015 at a single site in Germany. Results 464 patients underwent SAVR+CABG, 50 underwent TAVR+OP/MIDCAB, and 112 underwent TAVR+PCI. The mean ages ( p < 0.001) and logistic EuroSCOREs (p < 0.001) were similarly higher in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and TAVR+PCI patients compared to SAVR+CABG patients. Prior cardiac surgery was more common in TAVR+PCI than in TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients (p < 0.001). Procedural times were shortest (p < 0.001), creatine kinase (muscle brain) levels least elevated (p < 0.001), pericardial tamponade least common ( p = 0.027), and length of hospital stay shortest ( p = 0.011) in TAVR+PCI, followed by TAVR+OP/MIDCAB and SAVR+CABG patients. In-hospital mortality was highest for TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients (18.0%) with comparable rates for TAVR+PCI and SAVR+CABG groups (9.0 and 6.9%; p = 0.009). Mortality by 12 months was more probable after TAVR+OP/MIDCAB (HR: 2.17, p = 0.002) and TAVR/PCI (HR: 1.63, p = 0.010) than after SAVR+CABG, with the same true of rehospitalisation (HR: 2.39, p = 0.003 and HR: 1.63, p = 0.033). Conclusions TAVR+OP/MIDCAB patients share many characteristics with TAVR+PCI patients, with only slightly poorer long-term outcomes. In patients ineligible for SAVR+CABG and TAVR+PCI, hybrid interventions are reasonable second-line options. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-019-1087-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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.

To support the global restart of elective surgery, data from an international prospective cohort study of 8492 patients (69 countries) was analysed using artificial intelligence (machine learning techniques) to develop a predictive score for mortality in surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2. We found that patient rather than operation factors were the best predictors and used these to create the COVIDsurg Mortality Score (https://covidsurgrisk.app). Our data demonstrates that it is safe to restart a wide range of surgical services for selected patients.

The incidence of degenerative aortic valve diseases has increased along with the life expectancy of our population. Although conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the gold standard for symptomatic aortic stenosis, transcatheter procedures have proven to be a valid therapeutic option in high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare these procedures in a high-risk cohort. We retrospectively analyzed all symptomatic (dyspnea or angina) high-risk patients (logistic EuroSCORE ≥ 15%) fulfilling the transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) indications. Most of the AVR patients ( = 180) were operated on before the implementation of TAVI. All TAVI procedures ( = 127) were performed transapically (TA). After matching for age, logistic EuroSCORE, and left ventricular ejection fraction, 82 pairs of patients were evaluated. When comparing AVR with TA-TAVI, there was no difference between groups in survival after 1 year (Kaplan-Meier analysis, 81.1% [95% CI: 72.5-89.7%] vs. 75.8% [95% CI: 66.2-75.9%], Log tank = 0.660) and the complication rates ( for AVR vs. TA-TAVI: stroke, 2 vs. 0, = 0.580; acute renal insufficiency, 8 vs. 12, = 0.340; atrial fibrillation, 24 vs. 26, = 0.813; pacemaker implantation, 4 vs. 4, > 0.999). In addition, quality of life did not differ between groups. Patients in the TA-TAVI group had lower mean valvular gradients postoperatively compared with the AVR group (14.6 ± 6.6 vs. 10.2 ± 4.9 mm Hg, < 0.001). For high-risk patients, the TAVI procedure is comparable with conventional AVR, but is not advantageous. These results do not support the expansion of TAVI to low- or intermediate-risk patients.

Simultaneously performed complete off-pump coronary revascularization is a feasible and valid option in patients with significant CAD undergoing TAVI.