Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement After Surgical Repair or Replacement: Comprehensive Mid-Term Evaluation of Valve-in-Valve and Valve-in-Ring Implantation from the VIVID Registry

Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining mid-term outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. Methods: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient 6510 mmHg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as 65 moderate. Results: A total of 1,079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5 years \ub1 12.5; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days [IQR 76 - 996 days]; median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year 772.5 days [IQR 510 - 1211.75 days]. Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV vs. 49.5% for ViR (p<0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve post-procedure was 5.7 \ub1 2.8 mmHg ( 655mmHg, 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients (p=0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% vs. 3.1%; p<0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% vs. 61.6%; p=0.02). The rates of MVARC-defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR vs. 41.3% ViV; p=0.01), mostly related to having post-procedural mean gradient 655mmHg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (SHR 4.67; 95% CI 1.74 - 12.56; p=0.002) and significant residual MR (SHR 7.88; 95% CI 2.88 - 21.53; p<0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. Conclusions: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve post-procedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored