PubMed Posts

Background: Guidelines on the management of aortic aneurysm disease do not account for sex differences regarding surgical procedures on the proximal aorta, although faster aneurysm growth, increased rupture risk, and higher postoperative mortality have been found in women. We therefore analyzed outcome differences between men and women receiving operations on the proximal aorta.

Methods: A total of 1773 patients underwent nonemergency surgical procedures on the aortic valve (AV) and proximal aorta at our institution between 2000 and 2018. Of these, 772 patients (21.8% women) received a Bentall procedure, 349 (20.3% women) had AV-sparing root replacement, and 652 (31.1% women) underwent AV and supracommissural ascending aorta replacement. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and midterm survival.

Results: When assessing sex-related differences within the entire group of patients that received an operation on the proximal aorta, women were found to be older, had a lower body mass index, and were smokers less often. Despite shorter procedural times, median ventilation times and intensive care unit length of stay were longer in women. In-house mortality was also higher in women (3.6% vs 0.9%, P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed age (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.3 per 5 years added; P < .001), female sex (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.8; P = .02), and urgent surgery (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.2-7.3; P = .01) as independent risk factors for in-house death. Midterm survival was lower for women in the entire cohort (P = .02) and particularly within the Bentall subgroup (P = .004).

Conclusions: Female sex is an independent risk factor for operative mortality in patients undergoing proximal aortic surgery but is currently not addressed in guidelines. More research should focus on etiology and prevention of these worse outcomes in female patients.

Objectives: To compare procedural and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless (Perceval, Livanova PLC, London, UK) and rapid deployment (Intuity Elite, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) aortic valve replacement (group 1) versus sutured aortic valve replacement (group 2).

Methods: Patients receiving isolated aortic valve replacement between 2014 and 2020 were analysed using data from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry. Patients in group 1 and group 2 were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio.

Results: A total of 7708 patients were included in the study. After matching, 2 groups of 2643 each were created. Patients in group 1 were more likely to undergo minimally invasive approaches and were associated with shorter operative times when compared with group 2. Overall in-hospital mortality was similar between groups. While an increased risk of stroke was observed in group 1 in the first study period (2014-2016; relative risk 3.76, P < 0.001), no difference was found in more recent year period (relative risk 1.66, P = 0.08; P for heterogeneity 0.003). Group 1 was associated with reduced rates of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome, atrial fibrillation and mild aortic regurgitation. New pacemaker implant was three-fold higher in group 1.

Conclusions: Our findings showed significant differences in procedural and clinical outcomes between the study groups. These results suggest that sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve programme. The knowledge of the respective post-aortic valve replacement benefits for different valve technologies may result in patient-tailored valve selection with improved clinical outcomes.

The absence of an accepted gold standard to estimate volume status is an obstacle for optimal management of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). The applicability of the analogue mean systemic filling pressure (Pmsa) as a surrogate of the mean circulatory pressure to estimate volume status for patients with LVADs has not been investigated. Variability of flows generated by the Impella CP, a temporary LVAD, should have no physiological impact on fluid status. This translational interventional ovine study demonstrated that Pmsa did not change with variable circulatory flows induced by a continuous flow LVAD (the average dynamic increase in Pmsa of 0.20 ± 0.95 mmHg from zero to maximal Impella flow was not significant (p = 0.68)), confirming applicability of the human Pmsa equation for an ovine LVAD model. The study opens new directions for future translational and human investigations of fluid management using Pmsa for patients with temporary LVADs.

Background: Whilst a combination of genetically mediated vulnerability and hemodynamic insult is suspected to contribute to bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) aortopathy, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms are poorly understood.

Methods: Utilizing RT-qPCR, we compared the expression of 28 potentially relevant long non-coding RNA (lncRNA) in aortic tissue from BAV patients undergoing aortic surgery for aortopathy, to healthy controls. Relative lncRNA expression was measured using ΔΔCT, with fold-change calculated as RQ=2^-ΔΔCT.

Results: When comparing samples from BAV patients (n=29, males n=25; median age 58 years, Q1-Q3 51-65, maximum aortic dimension 50±5 mm) with healthy controls (n=7; males n=4, P=.12; median age 39 years, Q1-Q3 18-47, P=.001), there were two differentially expressed lncRNA: TUG1 expression was significantly lower in BAV aortic tissue (RQ 0.59, 95% CI 0.50-0.69, P=.02), whilst MIAT expression was significantly higher (RQ 2.87, 95% CI 1.96-4.20, P=.01). Sensitivity analysis including only patients with normal BAV function showed similar trends of differential expression of TUG1 (RQ 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.90, P=.29) and MIAT (RQ 2.55, 95% CI 1.21-5.36, P=.29) compared to controls.

Conclusions: LncRNA TUG1 and MIAT are differentially expressed in BAV aortopathy compared to healthy controls, independent of BAV hemodynamics. Aberrant lncRNA expression may be involved in the pathogenesis of BAV aortopathy.

Background: Consensus recommendations regarding the threshold levels of cardiac troponin elevations for the definition of perioperative myocardial infarction and clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery range widely (from >10 times to ≥70 times the upper reference limit for the assay). Limited evidence is available to support these recommendations.

Methods: We undertook an international prospective cohort study involving patients 18 years of age or older who underwent cardiac surgery. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I measurements (upper reference limit, 26 ng per liter) were obtained 3 to 12 hours after surgery and on days 1, 2, and 3 after surgery. We performed Cox analyses using a regression spline that explored the relationship between peak troponin measurements and 30-day mortality, adjusting for scores on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (which estimates the risk of death after cardiac surgery on the basis of 18 variables, including age and sex).

Results: Of 13,862 patients included in the study, 296 (2.1%) died within 30 days after surgery. Among patients who underwent isolated coronary-artery bypass grafting or aortic-valve replacement or repair, the threshold troponin level, measured within 1 day after surgery, that was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of more than 1.00 for death within 30 days was 5670 ng per liter (95% confidence interval [CI], 1045 to 8260), a level 218 times the upper reference limit. Among patients who underwent other cardiac surgery, the corresponding threshold troponin level was 12,981 ng per liter (95% CI, 2673 to 16,591), a level 499 times the upper reference limit.

Conclusions: The levels of high-sensitivity troponin I after cardiac surgery that were associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days were substantially higher than levels currently recommended to define clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VISION Cardiac Surgery ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01842568.).

Objectives: Aortic steal is an underestimated risk factor for intraoperative spinal cord ischaemia. A negative effect on spinal cord perfusion in thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair has been suspected if blood drains away from the cord initiated by a reversal of the arterial pressure gradient. The amount of blood and pressure loss via back-bleeding of segmental arteries and the impact of distal aortic perfusion (DaP) have not been analysed yet. The aim of our study was to quantify ‘segmental steal’ in vivo during simulated thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair and to determine the impact of DaP on steal and spinal cord perfusion.

Methods: Ten juvenile pigs were put on cardiopulmonary bypass with DaP and visceral arteries were ligated. ‘Segmental steal’ was quantified by draining against gravity with/without DaP. Blood volume of ‘segmental steal’ was quantified and microspheres were injected for Post mortem spinal cord perfusion analysis. ‘Segmental steal’ was quantified with/without DaP-and with stopped DaP.

Results: Quantification revealed a significantly higher steal on cardiopulmonary bypass with DaP with a mean difference of 24(11) ml/min. In all spinal cord segments, blood flow was diminished during steal drainage on DaP, compared to ‘no steal’. The least perfused region was the low thoracic to upper lumbar segment.

Conclusions: ‘Segmental steal’ is a relevant threat to spinal cord perfusion-even with the utilization of DaP-diminishing spinal cord perfusion. The blood volume lost by back-bleeding of segmental arteries is not to be underestimated and occlusion of segmental arteries should be considered in thoraco-abdominal aneurysm repair.

Enterobacter cloacae are a rare cause of infective endocarditis (IE). We present an interesting case of a 51-year-old intravenous drug user with E. cloacae IE of a prosthetic aortic valve and a fistula into the right ventricle. He underwent surgical repair and 6 weeks of intravenous meropenem.

No abstract available

Objectives: With the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) into intermediate and low risk, the number of TAVR procedures is bound to rise and along with it the number of cases of infective endocarditis following TAVR (TIE). The aim of this study was to review a multicentre experience of patients undergoing surgical intervention for TIE and to analyse the underlying indications and operative results.

Methods: We retrospectively identified and analysed 69 patients who underwent cardiac surgery due to TIE at 9 cardiac surgical departments across Germany. The primary outcome was operative mortality, 6-month and 1-year survival.

Results: Median age was 78 years (72-81) and 48(69.6%) were male. The median time to surgical aortic valve replacement was 14 months (5-24) after TAVR, with 32 patients (46.4%) being diagnosed with early TIE. Cardiac reoperations were performed in 17% of patients and 33% underwent concomitant mitral valve surgery. The main causative organisms were: Enterococcus faecalis (31.9%), coagulase-negative Staphylococcus spp. (26.1%), Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (15.9%) and viridians group streptococci (14.5%). Extracorporeal life support was required in 2 patients (2.9%) for a median duration of 3 days. Postoperative adverse cerebrovascular events were observed in 13 patients (18.9%). Postoperatively, 9 patients (13.0%) required a pacemaker and 33 patients (47.8%) needed temporary renal replacement therapy. Survival to discharge was 88.4% and survival at 6 months and 1 year was found to be 68% and 53%, respectively.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that TIE can be treated according to the guidelines for prosthetic valve endocarditis, namely with early surgery. Surgery for TIE is associated with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates. Surgery should be discussed liberally as a treatment option in patients with TIE by the ‘endocarditis team’ in referral centres.

Background: This study compared clinical and hemodynamic in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless vs rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR).

Methods: We examined 4695 patients who underwent isolated or combined SURD-AVR. The “sutureless” Perceval valve (LivaNova PLC, London, United Kingdom) was used in 3133 patients and the “rapid deployment” Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) in 1562. Potential confounding factors were addressed by the use of propensity score matching. After matching, 2 well-balanced cohorts of 823 pairs (isolated SURD-AVR) and 467 pairs (combined SURD-AVR) were created.

Results: Patients who received Perceval and Intuity valves showed similar in-hospital mortality and rate of major postoperative complications. Perceval was associated shorter cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times. In the isolated SURD-AVR group, patients receiving Perceval were more likely to undergo anterior right thoracotomy incision. Postoperative transvalvular gradients were significantly lower for the Intuity valve compared with those of the Perceval valve, either in isolated and combined SURD-AVR. The Intuity valve was associated with a lower rate of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.

Conclusions: Our results confirm the safety and efficacy of SURD-AVR regardless of the valve type. The Perceval valve was associated with reduced operative times and increased anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve showed superior hemodynamic outcomes and a lower incidence of postoperative mild aortic regurgitation.