Search

Background. The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) mandates attention to outcomes after surgical AVR (SAVR). The aim of this study was to assess 1-year outcomes in a contemporary large cohort of patients undergoing AVR. Methods. Data from 520 patients who underwent isolated SAVR between October 2016 and April 2019 were prospectively collected. Results. The mean age of the study population was 72.8 ± 10.1 years and the average EuroSCORE II was 1.8 ± 1.5%. SAVR was performed using minimally invasive approaches (MI-AVR) in 306 patients (58.9%). However, the rate of MI-AVR considerably increased over the observational period from 47.9% to 86.7% (p

OBJECTIVES The impact of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) systems on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. This study compared in-hospital and 1 year outcomes of MI-AVR interventions using MiECC systems versus conventional extracorporeal circulation (c-ECC). METHODS Data from 288 consecutive patients undergoing primary isolated MI-AVR using MiECC (n = 102) or c-ECC (n = 186) were prospectively collected. Treatment selection bias was addressed by the use of propensity score matching (MiECC vs c-ECC). After propensity score matching, 2 groups of 93 patients each were created. RESULTS Compared with c-ECC, MiECC was associated with a higher rate of autologous priming (82.4% vs 0%; P CONCLUSIONS MiECC systems were a safe and effective tool in patients who had MI-AVR. Compared with c-ECC, MiECC promotes ultra-fast-track management and provides better clinical outcomes as regards bleeding, blood transfusions and postoperative AF. Thus, by reducing surgical injury and promoting faster recovery, MiECC may further validate MI-AVR interventions.

Background: Although sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has been associated with an increased rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to conventional AVR (c-AVR), the predictors of new conduction abnormalities remain to be clarified. This study aimed to identify risk factors for conduction disorders in patients undergoing AVR surgery. Methods: Data from 243 patients receiving minimally invasive AVR were prospectively collected. SURD-AVR was performed in 103 (42.4%) patients and c-AVR in 140 (57.6%). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of new-onset conduction disorders, defined as first degree atrioventricular (AV) block, advanced AV block requiring PPM implantation, left anterior fascicular block (LAFB), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB). Results: The unadjusted comparison revealed that SURD-AVR was associated with a higher rate of advanced AV block requiring PPM when compared with c-AVR (10.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.01). After adjusting for other measured covariates (OR: 1.6, P=0.58) and for the estimated propensity of SURD-AVR (OR: 5.1, P=0.1), no significant relationship between type of AVR and PPM implantation emerged. On multivariable analysis, preoperative first-degree AV block (OR: 6.9, P=0.04) and RBBB (OR: 6.9, P=0.03) were independent risk factors for PPM. Subgroup analysis of patients with normal preoperative conduction revealed similar incidence of PPM between SURD-AVR and c-AVR (1.3% vs. 1.9%, P=0.6). When compared with c-AVR, SURD-AVR was associated with a greater incidence of postoperative new onset LBBB (18.1% vs. 3.2%, P