Data analysis from the Spanish Registry of Cardiac Surgery (RECC) 2021-2022

Cardiovascular surgery; Acquired cardiac disease; Aortic surgeryCirurgia cardiovascular; Cardiopaties adquirides; Cirurgia aòrticaCirugía cardiovascular; Cardiopatías adquiridas; Cirugía aórticaIntroducción Desde el 8 de febrero de 2021, la Sociedad Española de Cirugía Cardiovascular y Endovascular (SECCE) puso en marcha el Registro Español de Cirugía Cardiaca (RECC) que está disponible para las diferentes unidades de cirujanos cardiovasculares de nuestro país. Es una herramienta que permite recopilar datos de pacientes sometidos a cirugía cardiaca, vascular o endovascular. Tras dos años de desarrollo, hemos llevado a cabo un análisis de la calidad de la información obtenida para adquirir una visión general de su contenido. Métodos La información ha sido analizada de forma anónima a nivel de paciente, hospital y provincia. Para la estimación de la mortalidad ajustada por riesgo se utilizó la escala de estimación de riesgo preoperatorio EuroSCORE II. Resultados Se han incluido en el RECC un total de 7.087 intervenciones, de las cuales 6.267 se trataban de cirugías cardiacas mayores. Del total de intervenciones mayores, 53,9% eran cirugías valvulares, 25,2% de revascularización miocárdica y 14,9% de aorta. La mortalidad global de la serie fue de 5,0% y el índice de mortalidad ajustada al riesgo (IMAR) de 0,88. La calibración del EuroSCORE II en la muestra global fue buena en los pacientes de riesgo más bajo, aunque sobreestimó la mortalidad en los de alto riesgo. Conclusiones El RECC se trata de una base de datos clínica nacional que permite el análisis de datos de pacientes con el fin de evaluar de forma precisa el volumen de la actividad, riesgo y resultados. A nivel local, podría utilizarse como una herramienta para mejorar la calidad de la atención y el desarrollo de programas correctivos.Introduction Since February 8, 2021, the Spanish Society of Cardiovascular and Endovascular Surgery got under way the Spanish Registry of Cardiac Surgery (RECC), which is available for the different units of cardiovascular surgeons in our country. It is a tool that allows collect patient-level data of patients undergoing cardiac, vascular or endovascular surgery. After two years of development, we have carried out an analysis of the quality of the information obtained in order to acquire an overview of its content. Methods The information has been analyzed anonymously at patient, hospital and province level. For risk-adjusted mortality estimation, the EuroSCORE II preoperative risk estimation scale was used. Results A total of 7087 interventions have been included. Six thousand two hundred and sixty-seven were major cardiac surgeries: 53.9% valvular, 25.2% coronary artery bypass grafting, and 14.9% aortic procedures. The overall mortality was 5.0% and the risk-adjusted mortality rate was 0.88. The EuroSCORE II calibration in the overall sample was good in the lowest-risk patients, although it overestimated mortality in high-risk patients. Conclusions RECC is a nationally defined clinical database in the field of cardiovascular surgery. RECC allows a patient-level data analysis in order to perform an accurate analysis of the volumen of activity, risk adjustment and results. Locally, it could be used as a tool to improve the quality of care and development of corrective programs

Variablity of Mechanical or Tissue Valve Implantation in Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Spain: National Retrospective Analysis from 2007 to 2018

Background: There is no robust evidence regarding the types of valves implanted among patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Spain. Methods: All cases of patients undergoing SAVR ± coronary artery bypass grafting from January 2007 to December 2018 in the public Spanish National Health System were included. We analyzed the trends of SAVR volume, risk profile and type of implanted valve across time and place. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified factors associated with biological SAVR. Results: In total, 62,870 episodes of SAVR in 15 Spanish territories were included. In 35,693 (56.8%), a tissue valve was implanted. The annual volume of procedures increased from 107.3/million (2007) to 128.6 (2017). In 2018, it fell to 108.5. Age increased and Charlson’s comorbity index worsened throughout the study period. Tissue valve implantation increased in most regions. After adjusting for other covariates, we observed a high variability in aortic valve implantation across different regions, with differences of as much as 20-fold in the use of tissue valves. Conclusions: Between 2007 and 2018, we detected a significant increase in the use of bioprostheses in patients undergoing SAVR in Spain, and a great variability in the types of valve between the Spanish territories, which was not explained by the different risk profiles of patients

Estudio del comportamiento hemodinámico in-vivo de tres bioprótesis cardiacas: análisis comparativo y resultados a medio plazo

La sustitución valvular aórtica es el procedimiento quirúrgico cardiaco más frecuentemente realizado en España. La causa más común en nuestro medio de valvulopatía aórtica es la estenosis aórtica degenerativa. En la actualidad, el único tratamiento eficaz para parar la progresión de la estenosis aórtica, mejorar los síntomas y prolongar la esperanza de vida es la sustitución valvular por una prótesis. Existen dos tipos de prótesis valvulares cardiacas, las biológicas y las mecánicas, cada una de ellas con diferentes indicaciones de implante. Debido a la tendencia creciente de la población mayor de 65 años se está extendiendo el uso de bioprótesis con el fin de disminuir el riesgo hemorrágico y trombótico asociado al uso de prótesis mecánicas. A día de hoy existen pocas comparaciones adecuadas en la literatura científica entre las distintas prótesis biológicas comercializadas..

One-Year Hemodynamic Performance of Three Cardiac Aortic Bioprostheses: A Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial

Background: We aimed to compare 1 year the hemodynamic in-vivo performance of three biological aortic prostheses (Carpentier Perimount Magna EaseTM, Crown PRTTM, and TrifectaTM). Methods: The sample used in this study comes from the “BEST-VALVE” clinical trial, which is a phase IV single-blinded randomized clinical trial with the three above-mentioned prostheses. Results: 154 patients were included. Carpentier Perimount Magna EaseTM (n = 48, 31.2%), Crown PRTTM (n = 51, 32.1%) and TrifectaTM (n = 55, 35.7%). One year after the surgery, the mean aortic gradient and the peak aortic velocity was 17.5 (IQR 11.3–26) and 227.1 (IQR 202.0–268.8) for Carpentier Perimount Magna EaseTM, 21.4 (IQR 14.5–26.7) and 237.8 (IQR 195.9–261.9) for Crown PRTTM, and 13 (IQR 9.6–17.8) and 209.7 (IQR 176.5–241.4) for TrifectaTM, respectively. Pairwise comparisons demonstrated improved mean gradients and maximum velocity of TrifectaTM as compared to Crown PRTTM. Among patients with nominal prosthesis sizes ≤ 21, the mean and peak aortic gradient was higher for Crown PRTTM compared with TrifectaTM, and in patients with an aortic annulus measured with metric Hegar dilators less than or equal to 22 mm. Conclusions: One year after surgery, the three prostheses presented a different hemodynamic performance, being TrifectaTM superior to Crown PRTTM