Search

Objectives: Benefits of tricuspid valve repair (TVR) in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients have been questioned. High TVR failure rates have been reported. Remaining or recurring TR was found to be a risk factor for right heart failure (RHF). Therefore, we assessed our experience. Methods: Since 12/2010, 195 patients have undergone LVAD implantation in our center. Almost half (n = 94, 48%) received concomitant TVR (LVAD+TVR). These patients were included in our analysis. Echocardiographic and clinical data were assessed. Median follow-up was 2.8 years (7 days–0.6 years). Results were correlated with clinical outcomes. Results: LVAD+TVR patients were 59.8 ± 11.4 years old (89.4% male) and 37.3% were INTERMACS level 1 and 2. Preoperative TR was moderate in 28 and severe in 66 patients. RV function was severely impaired in 61 patients reflected by TAPSE-values of 11.2 ± 2.9 mm (vs. 15.7 ± 3.8 mm in n = 33; p < 0.001). Risk for RHF according to EUROMACS-RHF risk score was high (>4 points) in 60 patients, intermediate (>2–4 points) in 19 and low (0–2 points) in 15. RHF occurred in four patients (4.3%). Mean duration of echocardiographic follow-up was 2.8 ± 2.3 years. None of the patients presented with severe and only five (5.3%) with moderate TR. The vast majority (n = 63) had mild TR, and 26 patients had no/trace TR. Survival at 1, 3 and 5 years was 77.4%, 68.1% and 55.6%, 30-day mortality was 11.7% (n = 11). Heart transplantation was performed in 12 patients (12.8%). Conclusions: Contrary to expectations, concomitant TVR during LVAD implantation may result in excellent repair durability, which appears to be associated with low risk for RHF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the importance of valve competence in heart surgery and its impact on patient life expectancy. It explains that the mechanical correction of valve competency is a focus of therapy because medical treatment is unable to cure the problem. The article compares the durability of repair strategies for functional and structural regurgitation and suggests that the lack of repair durability in functional regurgitation may be responsible for the inability to demonstrate a survival impact. The article also presents a technique for repair of functional tricuspid regurgitation that potentially improves durability. Overall, the article emphasizes the need for lasting repair successes in valve surgery to improve patient outcomes. [Extracted from the article]

PubMed displayed almost 37,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2022." As before, we used the PRISMA approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. We focused on coronary and conventional valve surgery, their overlap with interventional alternatives, and briefly assessed surgery for aorta or terminal heart failure. In the field of coronary artery disease (CAD), key manuscripts addressed prognostic implications of invasive treatment options, classically compared modern interventions (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), and addressed technical aspects of CABG. The general direction in 2022 confirms the superiority of CABG over PCI in patients with anatomically complex chronic CAD and supports an infarct-preventative effect as underlying mechanism. In addition, the relevance of proper surgical technique to achieve durable graft patency and the need for optimal medical treatment in CABG patients was impressively illustrated. In structural heart disease, the comparisons of interventional and surgical techniques have been characterized by prognostic and mechanistic investigations underscoring the need for durable treatment effects and reductions of valve-related complications. Early surgery for most valve pathologies appears to provide significant survival advantages, and two publications on the Ross operation prototypically illustrate an inverse association between long-term survival and valve-related complications. For surgical treatment of heart failure, the first xenotransplantation was certainly dominant, and in the aortic surgery field, innovations in arch surgery prevailed. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PubMed displayed more than 35,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2021." We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. As in recent years, we reviewed the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with their interventional alternatives. COVID reduced cardiac surgical activity around the world. In the coronary field, the FAME 3 trial dominated publications by practically repeating SYNTAX, but with modern stents and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). PCI was again unable to achieve non-inferiority compared with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with triple-vessel disease. Survival advantages of CABG over PCI could be linked to a reduction in myocardial infarctions and current terminology was criticized because the term "myocardial revascularization" is not precise and does not reflect the infarct-preventing collateralization effect of CABG. In structural heart disease, new guidelines were published, providing upgrades of interventional treatments of both aortic and mitral valve disease. While for aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) received a primary recommendation in older and high-risk patients; recommendations for transcatheter mitral edge-to-edge treatment were upgraded for patients considered inappropriate for surgery. For heart team discussions it is important to know that classic aortic valve replacement currently provides strong signals (from registry and randomized evidence) for a survival advantage over TAVI after 5 years. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It can neither be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Isolated tricuspid valve (TV) surgery is considered a high risk-procedure. The optimal surgical approach is controversial. We analyzed our experience with isolated TV redo surgery performed either minimally invasively (redo-MITS) or through sternotomy. Methods We retrospectively analyzed all patients with previous cardiac surgery who underwent redo-MITS (n ¼ 26) and compared them to redo-Sternotomy (n ¼ 17). A group of primary-MITS (n ¼ 61) served as control. Results The redo-MITS approach consisted of a right anterolateral mini-thoracotomy, transpericardial right atrial access, and beating heart TV surgery without caval occlusion. Redo-MITS patients were oldest and had the most comorbidities (EuroScore II: 9.83 ± 6.05% versus redo-Sternotomy: 8.42 ± 7.33% versus primary-MITS: 4.15 ± 4.84%). There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to sternotomy in both MITS groups. Redo-Sternotomy had the highest 30-day mortality (24%), the poorest long-term survival, and the highest perioperative complication rate. Redo- MITS did not differ in perioperative outcome from primary-MITS. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified redo-Sternotomy (odds ratio [OR] ¼ 9.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88-63.26), liver cirrhosis (OR ¼ 9.88; 95% CI 2.20-54.20), and body mass index (BMI) (OR ¼ 1.16; 95% CI 1.02-1.35) as independent predictors of 30- day mortality. The Cox model revealed redo-Sternotomy (hazard ratio [HR] ¼ 2.67; 95% CI 1.18-6.03), liver cirrhosis (HR ¼ 3.31; 95% CI 1.45-7.58), and pulmonary hypertension (HR ¼ 2.26; 95% CI 1.04-4.92) as risk factors for poor long-termsurvival. TV surgery significantly reduces NYHA class. Conclusion Minimally invasive, isolated TV surgery as reoperation without caval occlusion and on the beating heart can be safe and may improve clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]