Research

Yan TD, Tian DH, LeMaire SA, Misfeld M, Elefteriades JA, Chen EP, Hughes GC, Kazui T, Griepp RB, Kouchoukos NT, Bannon PG, Underwood MJ, Mohr FW, Oo A, Sundt TM, Bavaria JE, Di Bartolomeo R, Di Eusanio M, Roselli EE, Beyersdorf F, Carrel TP, Corvera JS, Della Corte A, Ehrlich M, Hoffman A, Jakob H, Matalanis G, Numata S, Patel HJ, Pochettino A, Safi HJ, Estrera A, Perreas KG, Sinatra R, Trimarchi S, Sun LZ, Tabata M, Wang C, Haverich A, Shrestha M, Okita Y, Coselli J

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014 Jan;45(1):10-6

PMID: 24296985

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: A number of factors limit the effectiveness of current aortic arch studies in assessing optimal neuroprotection strategies, including insufficient patient numbers, heterogenous definitions of clinical variables, multiple technical strategies, inadequate reporting of surgical outcomes and a lack of collaborative effort. We have formed an international coalition of centres to provide more robust investigations into this topic.

METHODS: High-volume aortic arch centres were identified from the literature and contacted for recruitment. A Research Steering Committee of expert arch surgeons was convened to oversee the direction of the research.

RESULTS: The International Aortic Arch Surgery Study Group has been formed by 41 arch surgeons from 10 countries to better evaluate patient outcomes after aortic arch surgery. Several projects, including the establishment of a multi-institutional retrospective database, randomized controlled trials and a prospectively collected database, are currently underway.

CONCLUSIONS: Such a collaborative effort will herald a turning point in the surgical management of aortic arch pathologies and will provide better powered analyses to assess the impact of varying surgical techniques on mortality and morbidity, identify predictors for neurological and operative risk, formulate and validate risk predictor models and review long-term survival outcomes and quality-of-life after arch surgery.

Cooper EA, Edelman JJ, Black D, Brereton RJ, Ross DE, Bannon PG, Wilson MK, Vallely MP

Heart Lung Circ 2013 Dec;22(12):989-95

PMID: 23827207

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients undergoing surgical revascularisation may disproportionately benefit from avoiding manipulation of the ascending aorta and cardiopulmonary bypass. In this multi-centre observational study, we sought to determine the 30-day outcomes of anaortic off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) in an elderly and very-elderly population.

METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for all patients aged >70 years old (y) undergoing anaortic OPCAB at three hospitals between January 2002 and October 2011. Analysis was carried out on two age sub-groups (70-79 y vs. ≥80 y). Multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictors of post-operative 30-day mortality.

RESULTS: In total, 1135 patients >70 years underwent anaortic OPCAB – 817 (72%) patients were aged 70-79 y while 318 (28%) were aged ≥80 y. The rate of mortality and morbidity for both groups was low: 30-day mortality (70-79 y: 1.8%; ≥80 y: 2.8%) or permanent stroke (70-79 y: 0.2%; ≥80 y: 0.9%). Chronic lung disease, a history of previous myocardial infarction and left main disease were independent predictors of 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS: OPCAB is associated with low rates of 30-day mortality and peri-operative stroke in this elderly and very elderly patient cohort. Anaortic OPCAB can provide excellent short-term post-operative outcomes and may give the elderly and very elderly population the opportunity to benefit from surgical coronary revascularisation.

Edelman JJ, Teoh J, Okiwelu NL, Hung J, Passage J

J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2013 Oct;62(18):e243

PMID: 24013045

Abstract

Edelman JJ, Seco M, Dunne B, Matzelle SJ, Murphy M, Joshi P, Yan TD, Wilson MK, Bannon PG, Vallely MP, Passage J

Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013 Sep;2(5):677

PMID: 24109584

Abstract

Seco M, Cao C, Wilson MK, Vallely MP, Misfeld M, Mohr F, Yan TD

Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013 Sep;2(5):678

PMID: 24109585

Abstract

Wan B, Rahnavardi M, Tian DH, Bannon PG, Yan TD

Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013 Sep;2(5):679

PMID: 24109586

Abstract

Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, Yan TD

Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2012 May;1(1):3-10

PMID: 23977457

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary resection by robotic video-assisted thoracic surgery (RVATS) has been performed for selected patients in specialized centers over the past decade. Despite encouraging results from case-series reports, there remains a lack of robust clinical evidence for this relatively novel surgical technique. The present systematic review aimed to assess the short- and long-term safety and efficacy of RVATS.

METHODS: Nine relevant and updated studies were identified from 12 institutions using five electronic databases. Endpoints included perioperative morbidity and mortality, conversion rate, operative time, length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, duration of chest drainage, recurrence rate and long-term survival. In addition, cost analyses and quality of life assessments were also systematically evaluated. Comparative outcomes were meta-analyzed when data were available.

RESULTS: All institutions used the same master-slave robotic system (da Vinci, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California) and most patients underwent lobectomies for early-stage non-small cell lung cancers. Perioperative mortality rates for patients who underwent pulmonary resection by RVATS ranged from 0-3.8%, whilst overall morbidity rates ranged from 10-39%. Two propensity-score analyses compared patients with malignant disease who underwent pulmonary resection by RVATS or thoracotomy, and a meta-analysis was performed to identify a trend towards fewer complications after RVATS. In addition, one cost analysis and one quality of life study reported improved outcomes for RVATS when compared to open thoracotomy.

CONCLUSIONS: Results of the present systematic review suggest that RVATS is feasible and can be performed safely for selected patients in specialized centers. Perioperative outcomes including postoperative complications were similar to historical accounts of conventional VATS. A steep learning curve for RVATS was identified in a number of institutional reports, which was most evident in the first 20 cases. Future studies should aim to present data with longer follow-up, clearly defined surgical outcomes, and through an intention-to-treat analysis.

Yan TD

Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2012 May;1(1):1

PMID: 23977456

Abstract

Cao C, Manganas C, Ang SC, Yan TD

Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2012 May;1(1):16-23

PMID: 23977459

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been established as a safe and feasible alternative to open thoracotomy. This meta-analysis aims to assess the potential difference between unmatched and propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent VATS versus open thoracotomy in the current literature.

METHODS: Three relevant studies with unmatched and propensity score-matched patients were identified from six electronic databases to examine perioperative outcomes after VATS lobectomy versus open thoracotomy for patients with early-stage NSCLC. Endpoints included perioperative mortality and morbidity, individual postoperative complications and duration of hospitalization.

RESULTS: Results indicate that perioperative mortality was significantly lower for VATS compared to open thoracotomy in unmatched patients but no significant difference was detected amongst propensity score-matched patients. Similarly, the incidences of prolonged air leak and sepsis were significantly lower for VATS in the unmatched cohort, but not identified in the propensity score-matched cohort. In both the unmatched and matched groups, patients who underwent VATS were found to have a significantly lower overall perioperative morbidity rate, incidences of pneumonia and atrial arrhythmias, and a shorter duration of hospitalization in comparison to patients who underwent open thoracotomy.

CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis indicates that VATS lobectomy has superior perioperative outcomes compared to open thoracotomy in both matched and unmatched cohorts. However, the extent of the superiority may have been overestimated in the unmatched patients when compared to propensity score-matched patients. Due to the limited number of studies with available data included in the present meta-analysis, these results are only of observational interest and should be interpreted with caution.

Yan TD, Bannon PG

Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2012 Jul;1(2):114

PMID: 23977481

Abstract