Search

Objectives: The impact of long-term complications after robotic hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), including persistent angina, repeat revascularization, and myocardial infarction (MI), remains limited. This study aims to determine the risk factors for coronary events after robotic HCR and their time-varying effects on outcomes. Methods: We identified all consecutive patients who underwent robotic HCR at our institution. Baseline characteristics were explored as possible risk factors for angina, MI, and repeat revascularization with stents at any time during the follow-up. Results: A total of 875 patients (mean age 71.1 ± 11.1 years) were included. After a median follow-up of 3.32 years (IQR 1.18–6.34 years), angina occurred in 134 patients (15.3%), repeat revascularization with stents in 139 patients (15.8%), and MI in 36 patients (4.1%). The hazard rates for all outcomes increased with follow-up time, with a notable early rise around two years of follow-up for angina and, to a lesser extent, repeat revascularization. The risk factors were the lack of radial artery graft use, black race, diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, low ejection fraction 50%), and more than three-vessel disease. Conclusions: Optimization of modifiable periprocedural risk factors may positively impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing robotic HCR.

Objective: The goal of this manuscript is to compare clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis (SU-AVR) and sutured bioprosthesis (SB). Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, data were extracted from studies published after August 2022 and found in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome of interest was post-procedural permanent pacemaker implantation, and the secondary outcomes were new left bundle branch block (LBBB), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL), valve dislocation (pop-out), need for a second transcatheter heart valve, 30-day mortality, stroke, and echocardiographic outcomes. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the analysis. When SU-AVR was compared to other SB, mortality ranged from 0 to 6.4% for Perceval and 0 to 5.9% for SB. Incidence of PVL (Perceval 1–19.4% vs. SB 0–1%), PPI (Perceval 2–10.7% vs. SB 1.8–8.5%), and MI (Perceval 0–7.8% vs. SB 0–4.3%) were comparable. In addition, the stroke rate was lower in the SU-AVR group when compared to SB (Perceval 0–3.7% vs. SB 1.8–7.3%). In patients with a bicuspid aortic valve, the mortality rate was 0–4% and PVL incidence was 0–2.3%. Long-term survival ranged between 96.7 and 98.6%. Valve cost analysis was lower for the Perceval valve and higher for sutured bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Compared to SB valves, Perceval bioprosthesis has proved to be a reliable prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement due to its non-inferior hemodynamics, implantation speed, reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time, reduced aortic cross-clamp time, and shorter length of stay.