Is there an optimal minimally invasive technique for left anterior descending coronary artery bypass?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of three different minimally invasive surgical techniques for left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): Port-Access surgery (PA-CABG), minimally invasive direct CABG (MIDCAB) and off-pump totally endoscopic CABG (TECAB).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Over a decade, 160 eligible patients for elective LAD bypass were referred to one of the three techniques: 48 PA-CABG, 53 MIDCAB and 59 TECAB. In MIDCAB group, Euroscore was higher and target vessel quality was worse. In TECAB group, early patency was systematically evaluated using coronary CT scan. During follow-up (mean 2.7 ± 0.1 years, cumulated 438 years) symptom-based angiography was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no conversion from off-pump to on-pump procedure or to sternotomy approach. In TECAB group, there was one hospital cardiac death (1.7%), reoperation for bleeding was higher (8.5% vs 3.7% in MIDCAB and 2% in PA-CABG) and 3-month LAD reintervention was significantly higher (10% vs 1.8% in MIDCAB and 0% in PA-CABG). There was no difference between MIDCAB and PA-CABG groups. During follow-up, symptom-based angiography (n = 12) demonstrated a good patency of LAD bypass in all groups and 4 patients underwent a no LAD reintervention. At 3 years, there was no difference in survival; 3-year angina-free survival and reintervention-free survival were significantly lower in TECAB group (TECAB, 85 ± 12%, 88 ± 8%; MIDCAB, 100%, 98 ± 5%; PA-CABG, 94 ± 8%, 100%; respectively).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our study confirmed that minimally invasive LAD grafting was safe and effective. TECAB is associated with a higher rate of early bypass failure and reintervention. MIDCAB is still the most reliable surgical technique for isolated LAD grafting and the least cost effective.</p

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using Transaortic Access

OBJECTIVES The Registry of the Utilization of the TAo-TAVR approach using the Edwards SAPIEN Valve (ROUTE) was established to assess the effectiveness and safety of the use of transaortic (TAo) access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures (NCT01991431). BACKGROUND TAVR represents an alternative to surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients. Whereas the transfemoral access route is used commonly as the first-line approach, transapical access is an option for patients not suitable for transfemoral treatment mainly due to anatomic conditions. TAo-TAVR has been shown to be a viable alternative surgical access route; however, only limited data on its effectiveness and safety has been published. METHODS ROUTE is a multicenter, international, prospective, observational registry; data were collected from 18 centers across Europe starting in February 2013. Patients having severe calcific aortic stenosis were documented if they were scheduled to undergo TAo-TAVR using an Edwards SAPIEN XT or a SAPIEN 3 valve. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were intraprocedural or in hospital and 30-day complication rates. RESULTS A total of 301 patients with a mean age of 81.7 +/- 5.9 years and an Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.0 +/- 7.6% were included. Valve success was documented in 96.7%. The 30-day mortality was 6.1% (18/293) (procedure-related mortality: 3.1%; 9 of 293). The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 defined complications included myocardial infarction (1.0%), stroke (1.0%), transient ischemic attack (0.3%), major vascular complications (3.4%), life-threatening bleeding (3.4%), and acute kidney injury (9.5%). In 3.3% of patients, paravalvular regurgitation was classified as moderate or severe (10 of 300). Twenty-six patients (8.8%) required permanent pacemaker implantation. CONCLUSIONS TAo access for TAVR seems to be a safe alternative to the transapical procedure. (C) 2016 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.Peer reviewe

Balloon-expandable transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation with or without predilation

Objective: It has been reported that balloon aortic valvuloplasty immediately before transfemoral or transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation has mostly little to no clinical value. We aimed to provide data on the need for balloon aortic valvuloplasty in patients undergoing transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods: Patients undergoing transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the Edwards SAPIEN XT (Nyon, Switzerland) or 3 transcatheter heart valve were prospectively included at 18 sites across Europe. In the present analysis, we compare the periprocedural and 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing conventional (thorn balloon aortic valvuloplasty) versus direct (-balloon aortic valvuloplasty) transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Results: Of the 300 patients enrolled, 222 underwent conventional and 78 underwent direct transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Peak and mean transvalvular gradients were improved in both groups with no significant difference between groups. Procedural duration, contrast agent volume, and requirement for postdilation were also comparable. A trend toward fewer periprocedural complications was evident in the direct group (3.9% vs 11.3%; P = .053), with significantly lower rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (0% vs 5.0%; P = .034). Balloon aortic valvuloplasty omission had no significant effect on any of the 30-day safety and efficacy outcomes, including Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 composite end points (early safety events: 22.7% vs 17.4%, odds ratio, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.62; clinical efficacy events: 20.5% vs 18.7%, odds ratio, 1.14, 95% confidence interval, 0.51-2.55). Conclusions: For many patients, balloon aortic valvuloplasty predilation seems to have little clinical value in transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a balloon expandable transcatheter valve and may result in a higher rate of periprocedural complications, particularly in terms of permanent pacemaker implantation.Peer reviewe

Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation as a first-line choice or as a last resort? An analysis based on the ROUTE registry

OBJECTIVES: Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAo-TAVI) is a recently developed alternative to transapical (TA) or transfemoral (TF) TAVI. We aimed to analyse the effectiveness and safety of TAo-TAVI as a first line approach and to compare it to patients receiving TAo-TAVI as a last resort, which is current practice. METHODS: ROUTE is a prospective, multicentre registry to assess the clinical outcomes of TAo-TAVI. Patients without contraindications for TA-and TF-TAVI (TAo-first) were compared to patients with contraindications for both of these access routes (TAo-last). Outcome analysis was based on VARC II defined clinical end-points. RESULTS: Three hundred and one patients were included, of which 224 patients met TAo-first and 77 TAo-last criteria. The valve was delivered and catheter retrieved successfully in all patients. In the TAo-first group, rates of conversion to open surgery and requirement for a second valve were low and not different compared to TAo-last patients (1% vs. 3%, P = 0.46 and 1% vs. 3%, P = 0.46, respectively). This was also true for the rate of paravalvular regurgitation (>= moderate: 4% vs. 3%). All-cause mortality at 30-days was 6% vs. 5% (P = 0.76), rates of stroke 2% vs. 0% (P = 0.24), pacemaker implantation (11% vs. 4%, P = 0.093), and life-threatening bleeding 4% vs. 3% (P = 0.70). Valve safety (both 85%, P = 0.98) and clinical efficacy (80% vs. 82%; P = 0.73) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although comparative data to TA and TF procedures were not available in the present analysis, findings suggest that TAo may be considered not only as a last resort strategy when classical access routes are deemed unfeasible, but also as a potential first-line option, with only low rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker implantation.Peer reviewe

Association of transaortic approach and transoesophageal echocardiography as the primary imaging technique for improved results in transcatheter valve implantation.

International audienceOBJECTIVES: The transaortic access has been proposed to perform transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with no other available access. We hypothesize that its coupling with transoesophageal echocardiographic guidance may further reduce procedure-related morbidity. METHODS: Transoesophageal echocardiography was adopted as the primary imaging modality to produce high-resolution images and to guide the deployment of the transcatheter valve. This imaging modality allows continuous visualization not only of the prosthesis and of the delivery system, but also of the surrounding anatomical landmarks (aortic annulus, sinotubular junction and anterior mitral leaflet). RESULTS: We report an initial series of eight patients, who were treated by a transaortic delivery of the transcatheter valve (SAPIEN Valve, Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) through an upper mini-sternotomy and guided by transoesophageal echocardiography. The procedure was uneventful in all patients; there were no cases of access site morbidity, periprocedural stroke or renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: The association of the transaortic route and the transoesophageal echo guidance has the potential to improve the results of transcatheter valve implantation, and deserves further investigation

Aortic valve stenosis after previous coronary bypass: Transcatheter valve implantation or aortic valve replacement?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>We report a prospective comparison between transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI, n = 13) and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR, n = 10) in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and previous coronary bypass surgery (CABG). All patients had at least bilateral patent internal thoracic arteries bypass without indication of repeat revascularization. After a similar post-procedure outcome, despite one early death in TAVI group, the 1-year survival was 100% in surgical group and in transfemoral TAVI group, and 73% in transapical TAVI group. When previous CABG is the lone surgical risk factor, indications for a TAVI procedure have to be cautious, specially if transfemoral approach is not possible.</p

Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation using SAPIEN XT or SAPIEN 3 valves in the ROUTE registry

Transaortic (TAo) access for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an alternative to the conventional transfemoral or transapical routes. Data comparing the characteristics and outcomes of TAo-TAVI using the SAPIEN XT and SAPIEN 3 heart valves are scarce. The objective of the current analysis was to provide such information. ROUTE is an international, prospective, observational registry. Patients with severe calcific aortic stenosis scheduled for TAo-TAVI with an Edwards SAPIEN XT or a SAPIEN 3 heart valve were consecutively enrolled at 22 centres across Europe between February 2013 and February 2015. Periprocedural, in-hospital and 30-day complication rates were assessed. Of the 301 patients included, 126 (41.9%) received a SAPIEN 3 and 175 (58.1%) a SAPIEN XT. The SAPIEN 3 was associated with shorter procedure time (101 ± 35 vs 111 ± 40 min; P = 0.031) and a lower quantity of contrast agent used (87 ± 43 vs 112 ± 50 ml; P  < 0.001). Balloon dilation was performed less often before (68.0% vs 78.3%; P = 0.045) and after implantation (13.6% vs 30.1%; P = 0.001). No statistically significant differences between the valve types were documented for overall (4.1% SAPIEN 3 vs 7.6% SAPIEN XT; P = 0.21), TAVI-related (0.8% vs 4.7%; P = 0.084) and cardiovascular mortality (2.4% vs 5.9%; P = 0.158). Major vascular complications were less frequent (0.8% vs 5.3%; P = 0.049), and there was a lower rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (0.8% vs 5.1%; P = 0.050) in the SAPIEN 3 group. Both the SAPIEN XT and SAPIEN 3 were safely implanted via the TAo route, though the SAPIEN 3 may be associated with a higher procedural success rate and improved prognosis. NCT0199143