Effective nonapical left ventricular pacing with quadripolar leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background: Current guidelines recommend avoiding apical left ventricular (LV) pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Aims: We investigated the feasibility of nonapical pacing with the current quadripolar LV lead technology. Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients who received CRT with an LV quadripolar lead. The post­­implantation position of each electrode of the LV lead was designated as basal, mid, or apical. The pacing capture threshold (PCT) and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) threshold were assessed for each electrode. Results: We enrolled 168 patients. A total of 8 CRT defibrillators were from Biotronik (with Sentus OTW QP leads), 98 were from Boston Scientific (with 21 Acuity X4 Spiral and 77 Acuity X4 Straight leads), and 62 from St. Jude Medical (with Quartet leads). The median (interquartile range) number of electrodes at nonapical segments per patient was 3 (1–4) with Biotronik Sentus leads, 4 (3–4) with spiral ­design Boston Scientific leads, 4 (3–4) with straight Boston Scientific leads, and 3 (3–4) with St. Jude Medical Quartet leads (P = 0.045). Three patients (38%) with Biotronik Sentus leads, 21 (100%) with spiral ­design Boston Scientific leads, 69 (90%) with straight ­design Boston Scientific leads, and 49 (79%) with St. Jude Medical Quartet leads (P < 0.001) had at least 1 electrode located at nonapical segments linked with a PNS ­PCT safety margin of more than 2 V. During the 6­month follow ­up, PNS was detected in 4 patients and was eliminated with reprogramming. No significant changes in PCT were detected during follow ­up. Conclusions: Quadripolar leads allowed nonapical pacing with acceptable electrical parameters in the majority of CRT recipients, although differences were found among the currently available devices

The rise of new technologies for aortic valve stenosis: A comparison of sutureless and transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) are suitable alternatives to conventional surgery. The aim of this study is to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI and SU-AVR.status: publishe

The rise of new technologies for aortic valve stenosis: A comparison of sutureless and transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) are suitable alternatives to conventional surgery. The aim of this study is to compare early outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI and SU-AVR. Methods: Data were analyzed on patients who underwent TAVI and patients who underwent SU-AVR. Two matched cohorts (TAVI vs SU-AVR) were created using propensity scores; all analyses were repeated for transapical TAVI and transfemoral TAVI, separately. Outcomes were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria. Results: A total of 2177 patients were included in the analysis: 1885 (86.6%) treated with TAVI; 292 (13.4%) treated with SU-AVR. Mortality in unmatched TAVI and SU-AVR patients was 7.1% and 2.1%, respectively, at 30 days, and 12.9% and 4.6%, respectively, at 1 year. No differences were found in 30-day mortality in the 214 matched patient pairs (3.7% vs 2.3%; P = .4), but patients treated with TAVI showed a lower incidence of device success (85.9% vs 98.6%; P < .001) and pacemaker implantation (2.8% vs 9.4%; P = .005), and a higher incidence of any paravalvular leakage (PVL). Conclusions: SU-AVR is associated with better device success and a lower incidence of PVL, compared with TAVI. Nevertheless, patients treated with SU-AVR were more likely to receive a permanent pacemaker. SU-AVR and TAVI provide good results in patients who have severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Given the multiple therapeutic options available, patients may receive the treatment that is most appropriate for their clinical and anatomical characteristics

Early and Mid-Term Results of Rapid-Deployment Valves: The Intuity Italian Registry (INTU-ITA)

Rapid deployment bioprostheses (RDB) have been recently introduced into clinical practice for the treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis. Aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to assess early and mid-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of patients undergoing RDB implantation

Minimally Invasive Vs. Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement With Rapid-Deployment Bioprostheses

BACKGROUND: Aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to compare early and mid- term clinical and hemodynamic results of aortic valve replacement (AVR) with rapid-deployment bioprostheses (RDB) performed through conventional full-sternotomy versus mini-sternotomy.METHODS: Data from the Italian multicenter registry of AVR with RDB (INTU-ITA registry) were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: full sternotomy (FS) and mini-sternotomy (MS). Primary endpoint was the comparison of early and mid-term mortality. Secondary endpoints were: comparison of intra-operative variables, complications and hemodynamic performance. A propensity score weighting approach was employed for data analysis.RESULTS: A total of 1057 patients were analyzed: 435 (41.2%) and 622 (58.8%) in Group FS and MS, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.6% and 0.6% in FS and MS groups, respectively (p=0.074). CPB time was 78.5 minutes and 83 minutes in FS and MS group, respectively (p=0.414). In the overall cohort, the incidence of intraoperative complications and of device success was 3.8% (40 patients) and 95.9% (1014 patients), respectively with no significant differences between groups. Survival at 1, 3, 5 years was 94.1% and 98.1%, 88.5% and 91.8%, 85.2% and 84.8% in FS and MS groups, respectively (p=0.412). The two groups showed similar postoperative gradients (Median mean gradient, FS: 10.0 mmHg, MS: 11.0 mmHg; p=0.170) and also similar incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (FS: 7%, MS: 6.4%,p=0.647).CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, RDB allow to perform minimally-invasive AVR with similar surgical times and similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes than conventional surgery and should be considered the first choice in these procedures

The COVID - AGICT study: COVID–19 and advanced gastro-intestinal cancer surgical treatment. A multicentric Italian study on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic impact on gastro-intestinal cancers surgical treatment during the 2020. Analysis of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes

Background This Italian multicentric retrospective study aimed to investigate the possible changes in outcomes of patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method Our primary endpoint was to determine whether the pandemic scenario increased the rate of patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers resected at an advanced stage in 2020 compared to 2019. Considering different cancer staging systems, we divided tumors into early stages and advanced stages, using pathological outcomes. Furthermore, to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical outcomes, perioperative data of both 2020 and 2019 were also examined. Results Overall, a total of 8250 patients, 4370 (53%) and 3880 (47%) were surgically treated during 2019 and 2020 respectively, in 62 Italian surgical Units. In 2020, the rate of patients treated with an advanced pathological stage was not different compared to 2019 (P = 0.25). Nevertheless, the analysis of quarters revealed that in the second half of 2020 the rate of advanced cancer resected, tented to be higher compared with the same months of 2019 (P = 0.05). During the pandemic year ‘Charlson Comorbidity Index score of cancer patients (5.38 ± 2.08 vs 5.28 ± 2.22, P = 0.036), neoadjuvant treatments (23.9% vs. 19.5%, P &lt; 0.001), rate of urgent diagnosis (24.2% vs 20.3%, P &lt; 0.001), colorectal cancer urgent resection (9.4% vs. 7.37, P &lt; 0.001), and the rate of positive nodes on the total nodes resected per surgery increased significantly (7 vs 9% - 2.02 ± 4.21 vs 2.39 ± 5.23, P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions Although the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic did not influence the pathological stage of colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers at the time of surgery, our study revealed that the pandemic scenario negatively impacted on several perioperative and post-operative outcomes

The MIS-COVID-AGICT Study: Trend of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer Treatment During the First Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy. Subgroup Analysis from the COVID-AGICT Study: COVID-19 and Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment

Background: A preliminary analysis from the COVID-Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgical Treatment (AGICT) study showed that the rate of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for elective and urgent procedures did not decrease during the pandemic year. In this article, we aimed to perform a subgroup analysis using data from the COVID-AGICT study to evaluate the trend of MIS during the COVID-19 pandemic period in Italy.Methods: This study was conducted collecting data of MIS patients from the COVID-AGICT database. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic scenario reduced MIS for elective treatment of gastrointestinal cancer (GIC) in Italy in 2020. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the impact of the pandemic period on perioperative outcomes in the MIS group.Results: In the pandemic year, 62% of patients underwent surgery with a minimally invasive approach, compared to 63% in 2019 (P = .23). In 2020, the proportion of patients undergoing elective MIS decreased compared to the previous year (80% versus 82%, P = .04), and the rate of urgent MIS did not differ between the 2 years (31% and 33% in 2019 and 2020 - P = .66). Colorectal cancer was less likely to be treated with MIS approach during 2020 (78% versus 75%, P &lt; .001). Conversely, the rate of MIS pancreatic resection was higher in 2020 (28% versus 22%, P &lt; .002). Conversion to an open approach was lower in 2020 (7.2% versus 9.2% - P = .01). Major postoperative complications were similar in both years (11% versus 11%, P = .9).Conclusion: In conclusion, although MIS for elective treatment of GIC in Italy was reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic period, our study revealed that the overall proportion of MIS (elective and urgent) and postoperative outcomes were comparable to the prepandemic period

Changes in surgicaL behaviOrs dUring the CoviD-19 pandemic. The SICE CLOUD19 Study

BACKGROUND: The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic.METHODS: The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March-May 2020), II (June-September 2020), and III (October-December 2020).RESULTS: Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (>200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (<20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices.CONCLUSION: This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic