Search

Background: In isolated mitral valve regurgitation general consensus on surgery is to favor repair over replacement excluding rheumatic etiology or endocarditis. If concomitant aortic valve replacement is performed however, clinical evidence is more ambiguous and no explicit guidelines exist on the choice of mitral valve treatment. Both, double valve replacement (DVR) and aortic valve replacement in combination with concomitant mitral valve repair (AVR + MVP) have been proven to be feasible procedures. In our single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study, we compared the outcome of these two surgical techniques focusing on mortality and morbidity., Methods: 89 patients underwent DVR (n = 41) or AVR + MVP (n = 48) in our institution between 2009 and 2018. Follow-up data was collected using electronic patient records, by contacting treating physicians and by telephone interviews. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to analyze mortality during follow-up and Cox regression to investigate potential predictors of mortality., Results: During a median follow-up duration of 4.5 [IQR 2.9 to 6.1] years, there was no significant difference in mortality between both cohorts. Thirty days mortality was 6.3% in the DVR and 7% in the AVR + MVP cohort. Overall mortality amounted to 17% for DVR and 23% for AVR + MVP. DVR was the preferred procedure for valve disease of rheumatic etiology and for endocarditis, while in degenerative valves AVR + MVP was predominant. More biological valves were used in the AVR + MVP cohort (p < 0.001) and more mechanical valves were implanted in the DVR cohort. The rate of rehospitalization, deterioration of left ventricular ejection fraction and postoperative complications were equally distributed among the two cohorts., Conclusion: Our data analysis showed that both DVR and AVR + MVP are safe and feasible options for double valve surgery. Based on our findings we could not prove superiority of one surgical technique over the other. Choosing the appropriate procedure for the patient should be influenced by valve etiology, patients' comorbidities and the surgeons' experience., Trial Registration: This was a retrospectively registered trial, registered on April 1st 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03667274., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Afternoon aortic valve replacement surgery may provide perioperative myocardial protection and improve patient outcomes compared with morning surgery. The results of our large observational study based on Swiss cardiac surgical site infection surveillance data suggest that the current evidence is insufficient to generally promote afternoon cardiac surgeries.

Based on a surgical site infection (SSI) cohort at an academic center, we showed a median potentially preventable loss per non-SSI case of $17,916 in colon surgery and of $34,741 in coronary artery bypass grafting.

Background: Whether the clinical outcome of off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCABG) surgery is superior to on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is still a matter of debate. However with the considerable reduction of mortality associated with CABG surgery in recent years, more subtle outcome indicators such as quality of life (QOL) become more important. The aim of this study was to compare midterm QOL after OPCABG with that after CABG procedures and with an age- and sex-matched standard population., Methods: Quality of life was assessed using the Short-Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire for 504 consecutive patients after CABG (n = 438) and OPCABG (n = 66) operated on between June 1999 and November 2000 at our institution., Results: Except for single-vessel disease, which was more frequent in OPCABG compared with CABG procedures (13.6% versus 6.8%; p <0.01), the preoperative variables were similar. Median EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) was 3.2 +/- 1.3 in the CABG group compared with 3.0 +/- 0.8 in the OPCABG group (p = not significant). After a mean follow-up of 10.8 +/- 0.5 months physical role function (73.5 +/- 38.3 versus 45.3 +/- 41.6; p <0.01) and emotional role function (75.3 +/- 40.3 versus 61.0 +/- 43.9; p <0.01) were significantly better in OPCABG than in CABG patients. Compared with a standard population, OPCABG patients were significantly impaired in emotional role function and CABG patients in physical and emotional role function., Conclusions: Midterm QOL after myocardial revascularization is fairly well preserved compared with an age- and sex-matched standard population and is superior after OPCABG compared with CABG. Whether this is only due to avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass remains to be elucidated.

Background: The Sorin Pericarbon Freedom Stentless aortic valve has the potential to provide superior hemodynamic function and durability. In this study we assessed the hemodynamic performance of this valve and its impact on LV-mass regression after aortic valve replacement., Methods: 31 consecutive patients who received a Sorin Pericarbon Freedom Stentless aortic valve were analysed. Mean age of the patients (16 female and 15 male) was 64 +/- 17 years. Five patients had isolated aortic stenosis, three isolated aortic regurgitation and one combined aortic valve disease. Three patients had combined aortic and mitral valve disease, 14 patients concomitant coronary artery disease, one congenital aortic coarctation. Three patients had an acute aortic valve endocarditis. 18 patients were classified as high-risk patients (mean EuroSCORE 9 +/- 2). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 52.5 +/- 15.0%., Results: Valve sizes from 21 mm to 29 mm were implanted. The valves were oversized by 2 mm compared to measurement. 16 patients received isolated aortic valve replacement, Three patients aortic valve replacement and mitral valve reconstruction. 12 patients had concomitant CABG. Three procedures were reoperations. Hospital mortality was 6.4% (two patients). Both deaths occurred in high-risk patients and were not valve-related. Four patients had perioperative low-output-syndrome and needed IABP. After six months a follow up echocardiography was performed. Mean and peak gradients were 9.6 +/- 4.4 and 20.6 +/- 5.9 mmHg, respectively. Significant reduction of left ventricular hypertrophy (LV mass index 126.5 +/- 27.3 vs. 189.6 +/- 45.3 g/m2, p = 0.0313) and improvement of the ejection fraction (58 +/- 9.8 vs. 52.5 +/- 15.0%, p = 0.9749) as compared with preoperative valve., Conclusions: The hemodynamic performance of the Sorin Pericarbon Freedom Stentless aortic valve is excellent and the patient outcome is satisfying. However the implantation technique requires longer ischemic time, the prosthesis offers very satisfying hemodynamic function and accelerates probably the LV-mass regression in the mid term follow-up. Late performance and durability of the valve have to be assessed.