Search

Objective: Recent reports on ischemic mitral valve (MV) regurgitation surgical strategies have suggested better hemodynamic performance with MV replacement (MVR) than MV repair (MVr) with no survival difference at 2 years. We evaluated the difference between MVR and MVr outcomes in patients with ischemic MR, including hemodynamic MV performance at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Methods: A single center cardiac surgery database was queried for patients (aged >/ = 18 years) requiring mitral valve surgery with concomitant CABG or PCI between January 2010 and June 2018. Patients were separated into two groups: mitral valve repair using ring annuloplasty (MVr) and mitral valve replacement (MVR). Results: A total of 111 patients (median age 66 years, 76% male) underwent an operation for ischemic mitral regurgitation during the study period. (44%) had MVr and 62 (56%) had MVR. Both groups had > 80% concomitant CABG. The MVr group had lower EF (40% vs. 55%, p < 0.01), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (117 vs. 164 minutes, p <.01) and shorter aortic cross-clamp time (80 vs. 116 minutes, p <.01). The in-hospital mortality (6% vs. 10%, p = 1.00) and 1-year mortality (14% vs. 18%, p = 0.17) were similar between the groups. Pre-operative left ventricular internal diameter at end-diastole was greater in the MVr group (5.6cm vs. 4.6cm, p <.01). At 1-year, more patients in the MVR group had no or trace regurgitation (29% vs. 61%, p = 0.01), however, the number of patients with moderate or greater mitral regurgitation was similar (6% vs. 12%, p = 0.69). At 2-years, the MVr and MVR groups had no difference in moderate or severe mitral regurgitation (7% vs. 13%, p = 0.68). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate similar early mortality and mid-term mitral valve performance, suggesting that MV repair could be a good surgical option in patients with ischemic MR requiring surgical revascularization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Use of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) has increased over the years as a bridge to transplant. The HeartWare HVAD (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) and HeartMate III (HM3, Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) are currently approved centrifugal-flow devices used for bridge to transplant. We sought to evaluate outcomes of the patients listed and who received a transplant after receiving these 2 devices. The United Network of Organ Sharing thoracic transplant database was queried after August 23, 2017, until December 2018 to identify patients aged older than 18 years listed for heart transplant and supported by the HVAD or HM3. Patient characteristics were evaluated at the time of listing and transplant. The primary study end point was 1-year mortality after LVAD implantation. Nonparametric tests were used to evaluate the device groups. Of 569 patients listed for heart transplant during the study period, 226 had HM3 and 343 had HVAD. The HM3 group had more men (82% vs 74%, P =.02), patients with diabetes (38% vs 29%, P =.02), and the body mass index was higher (28 vs 27 kg/m2, P =.04) at listing. Between the HM3 and HVAD groups, the 1-year mortality was 20% vs 17%, respectively (log-rank P =.28; Figure 1), and the posttransplant survival at 1 year was 97% and 94%, respectively (P =.1). In a relatively well-matched group of patients listed for heart transplant with a centrifugal-flow LVAD, the 6-month and 1-year mortality on the waiting list as well as after transplant were not statistically different. Additional real-world experience or a randomized trial would be needed to determine whether one LVAD is superior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aortic aneurysms involving the proximal aortic arch, which require hemiarch-type repair, typically require circulatory arrest with antegrade cerebral perfusion. Left carotid antegrade cerebral perfusion (LCP) via distal arch cannulation without circulatory arrest was used in this study's patient population. The goal was to assess the operative efficiency and clinical outcomes of using a distal arch cannulation technique that would not require any hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) time compared with more traditional brachiocephalic artery cannulation with right-sided unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion (RCP) and HCA., Methods: A single-center retrospective review of patients with replacement of the distal ascending aorta involving the proximal arch was performed. Patients with an intramural hematoma or dissection were excluded. Between January 2015 and December 2019, 68 adult patients had undergone a hemiarch repair because of aneurysmal disease. Analysis of baseline demographics, operative data, and clinical outcomes was performed., Results: Comparing the 68 patients: 21 patients were treated with RCP (via brachiocephalic artery graft with HCA), and 47 patients were treated with LCP (via distal aortic arch cannulation with cross-clamp between the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries without HCA). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were evaluated for both groups. The LCP group was younger (LCP median [IQR] age, 60 [53-65] years vs RCP median [IQR] age, 67 [59-71] years]. Sex, race, body mass index, comorbidities, and ejection fraction were similar between the groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass time (LCP, 123 minutes vs RCP, 149 minutes) and unilateral cerebral perfusion time (LCP, 17 minutes vs RCP, 22 minutes) were longer in the RCP group. Bleeding, prolonged ventilatory support, kidney failure, and length of stay were similar. In-hospital mortality was 2% in the LCP group vs 0% in the RCP group. Stroke occurred in 2 patients (4.2%) in the LCP group and in 0% of the RCP group. Mortality at 6 months in the LCP and RCP groups was 3% and 10%, respectively., Conclusion: Distal arch cannulation with LCP without HCA is a reasonable and safe alternative strategy for patients requiring hemiarch replacement for aneurysmal disease. This technique may provide additional benefits by avoiding circulatory arrest in these complex cases., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by The Texas Heart Institute®.)