Building a successful minimally invasive mitral valve repair program before introducing the robotic approach: The Massachusetts General Hospital experience

BackgroundPatients with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) requiring surgical repair (MVr) are increasingly operated using minimally invasive strategies. Skill acquisition may be facilitated by a dedicated MVr program. We present here our institutional experience in establishing minimally invasive MVr (starting in 2014), laying the foundation to introduce robotic MVr.MethodsWe reviewed all patients that had undergone MVr for MVP via sternotomy or mini-thoracotomy between January 2013 and December 2020 at our institution. In addition, all cases of robotic MVr between January 2021 and August 2022 were analyzed. Case complexity, repair techniques, and outcomes are presented for the conventional sternotomy, right mini-thoracotomy and robotic approaches. A subgroup analysis comparing only isolated MVr cases via sternotomy vs. right mini-thoracotomy was conducted using propensity score matching.ResultsBetween 2013 and 2020, 799 patients were operated for native MVP at our institution, of which 761 (95.2%) received planned MVr (263 [34.6%] via mini-thoracotomy) and 38 (4.8%) received planned MV replacement. With increasing proportions of minimally invasive procedures (2014: 14.8%, 2020: 46.5%), we observed a continuous growth in overall institutional volume of MVP (n = 69 in 2013; n = 127 in 2020) and markedly improved institutional rates of successful MVr, with 95.4% in 2013 vs. 99.2% in 2020. Over this period, a higher complexity of cases were treated minimally-invasively and increased use of neochord implantation ± limited leaflet resection was observed. Patients operated minimally invasively had longer aortic cross-clamp times (94 vs. 88 min, p = 0.001) but shorter ventilation times (4.4 vs. 4.8 h, p = 0.002) and hospital stays (5 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001) than those operated via sternotomy, with no significant differences in other outcome variables. A total of 16 patients underwent robotically assisted MVr with successful repair in all cases.ConclusionA focused approach towards minimally invasive MVr has transformed the overall MVr strategy (incision; repair techniques) at our institution, leading to a growth in MVr volume and improved repair rates without significant complications. On this foundation, robotic MVr was first introduced at our institution in 2021 with excellent outcomes. This emphasizes the importance of building a competent team to perform these challenging operations, especially during the initial learning curve

Higher COVID-19 pneumonia risk associated with anti-IFN-α than with anti-IFN-ω auto-Abs in children

We found that 19 (10.4%) of 183 unvaccinated children hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia had autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs (IFN-alpha 2 in 10 patients: IFN-alpha 2 only in three, IFN-alpha 2 plus IFN-omega in five, and IFN-alpha 2, IFN-omega plus IFN-beta in two; IFN-omega only in nine patients). Seven children (3.8%) had Abs neutralizing at least 10 ng/ml of one IFN, whereas the other 12 (6.6%) had Abs neutralizing only 100 pg/ml. The auto-Abs neutralized both unglycosylated and glycosylated IFNs. We also detected auto-Abs neutralizing 100 pg/ml IFN-alpha 2 in 4 of 2,267 uninfected children (0.2%) and auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-omega in 45 children (2%). The odds ratios (ORs) for life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia were, therefore, higher for auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-alpha 2 only (OR [95% CI] = 67.6 [5.7-9,196.6]) than for auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-. only (OR [95% CI] = 2.6 [1.2-5.3]). ORs were also higher for auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations (OR [95% CI] = 12.9 [4.6-35.9]) than for those neutralizing low concentrations (OR [95% CI] = 5.5 [3.1-9.6]) of IFN-omega and/or IFN-alpha 2

Autoantibodies against type I IFNs in patients with critical influenza pneumonia

In an international cohort of 279 patients with hypoxemic influenza pneumonia, we identified 13 patients (4.6%) with autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-alpha and/or -omega, which were previously reported to underlie 15% cases of life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia and one third of severe adverse reactions to live-attenuated yellow fever vaccine. Autoantibodies neutralizing type I interferons (IFNs) can underlie critical COVID-19 pneumonia and yellow fever vaccine disease. We report here on 13 patients harboring autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-alpha 2 alone (five patients) or with IFN-omega (eight patients) from a cohort of 279 patients (4.7%) aged 6-73 yr with critical influenza pneumonia. Nine and four patients had antibodies neutralizing high and low concentrations, respectively, of IFN-alpha 2, and six and two patients had antibodies neutralizing high and low concentrations, respectively, of IFN-omega. The patients' autoantibodies increased influenza A virus replication in both A549 cells and reconstituted human airway epithelia. The prevalence of these antibodies was significantly higher than that in the general population for patients 70 yr of age (3.1 vs. 4.4%, P = 0.68). The risk of critical influenza was highest in patients with antibodies neutralizing high concentrations of both IFN-alpha 2 and IFN-omega (OR = 11.7, P = 1.3 x 10(-5)), especially those <70 yr old (OR = 139.9, P = 3.1 x 10(-10)). We also identified 10 patients in additional influenza patient cohorts. Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs account for similar to 5% of cases of life-threatening influenza pneumonia in patients <70 yr old

Vaccine breakthrough hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs

Life-threatening `breakthrough' cases of critical COVID-19 are attributed to poor or waning antibody response to the SARS- CoV-2 vaccine in individuals already at risk. Pre-existing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs underlie at least 15% of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases in unvaccinated individuals; however, their contribution to hypoxemic breakthrough cases in vaccinated people remains unknown. Here, we studied a cohort of 48 individuals ( age 20-86 years) who received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine and developed a breakthrough infection with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia 2 weeks to 4 months later. Antibody levels to the vaccine, neutralization of the virus, and auto- Abs to type I IFNs were measured in the plasma. Forty-two individuals had no known deficiency of B cell immunity and a normal antibody response to the vaccine. Among them, ten (24%) had auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs (aged 43-86 years). Eight of these ten patients had auto-Abs neutralizing both IFN-a2 and IFN-., while two neutralized IFN-omega only. No patient neutralized IFN-ss. Seven neutralized 10 ng/mL of type I IFNs, and three 100 pg/mL only. Seven patients neutralized SARS-CoV-2 D614G and the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) efficiently, while one patient neutralized Delta slightly less efficiently. Two of the three patients neutralizing only 100 pg/mL of type I IFNs neutralized both D61G and Delta less efficiently. Despite two mRNA vaccine inoculations and the presence of circulating antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2, auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs may underlie a significant proportion of hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia cases, highlighting the importance of this particularly vulnerable population

Image1_Building a successful minimally invasive mitral valve repair program before introducing the robotic approach: The Massachusetts General Hospital experience.jpeg

BackgroundPatients with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) requiring surgical repair (MVr) are increasingly operated using minimally invasive strategies. Skill acquisition may be facilitated by a dedicated MVr program. We present here our institutional experience in establishing minimally invasive MVr (starting in 2014), laying the foundation to introduce robotic MVr.MethodsWe reviewed all patients that had undergone MVr for MVP via sternotomy or mini-thoracotomy between January 2013 and December 2020 at our institution. In addition, all cases of robotic MVr between January 2021 and August 2022 were analyzed. Case complexity, repair techniques, and outcomes are presented for the conventional sternotomy, right mini-thoracotomy and robotic approaches. A subgroup analysis comparing only isolated MVr cases via sternotomy vs. right mini-thoracotomy was conducted using propensity score matching.ResultsBetween 2013 and 2020, 799 patients were operated for native MVP at our institution, of which 761 (95.2%) received planned MVr (263 [34.6%] via mini-thoracotomy) and 38 (4.8%) received planned MV replacement. With increasing proportions of minimally invasive procedures (2014: 14.8%, 2020: 46.5%), we observed a continuous growth in overall institutional volume of MVP (n = 69 in 2013; n = 127 in 2020) and markedly improved institutional rates of successful MVr, with 95.4% in 2013 vs. 99.2% in 2020. Over this period, a higher complexity of cases were treated minimally-invasively and increased use of neochord implantation ± limited leaflet resection was observed. Patients operated minimally invasively had longer aortic cross-clamp times (94 vs. 88 min, p = 0.001) but shorter ventilation times (4.4 vs. 4.8 h, p = 0.002) and hospital stays (5 vs. 6 days, p ConclusionA focused approach towards minimally invasive MVr has transformed the overall MVr strategy (incision; repair techniques) at our institution, leading to a growth in MVr volume and improved repair rates without significant complications. On this foundation, robotic MVr was first introduced at our institution in 2021 with excellent outcomes. This emphasizes the importance of building a competent team to perform these challenging operations, especially during the initial learning curve.</p

Table1_Building a successful minimally invasive mitral valve repair program before introducing the robotic approach: The Massachusetts General Hospital experience.docx

BackgroundPatients with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) requiring surgical repair (MVr) are increasingly operated using minimally invasive strategies. Skill acquisition may be facilitated by a dedicated MVr program. We present here our institutional experience in establishing minimally invasive MVr (starting in 2014), laying the foundation to introduce robotic MVr.MethodsWe reviewed all patients that had undergone MVr for MVP via sternotomy or mini-thoracotomy between January 2013 and December 2020 at our institution. In addition, all cases of robotic MVr between January 2021 and August 2022 were analyzed. Case complexity, repair techniques, and outcomes are presented for the conventional sternotomy, right mini-thoracotomy and robotic approaches. A subgroup analysis comparing only isolated MVr cases via sternotomy vs. right mini-thoracotomy was conducted using propensity score matching.ResultsBetween 2013 and 2020, 799 patients were operated for native MVP at our institution, of which 761 (95.2%) received planned MVr (263 [34.6%] via mini-thoracotomy) and 38 (4.8%) received planned MV replacement. With increasing proportions of minimally invasive procedures (2014: 14.8%, 2020: 46.5%), we observed a continuous growth in overall institutional volume of MVP (n = 69 in 2013; n = 127 in 2020) and markedly improved institutional rates of successful MVr, with 95.4% in 2013 vs. 99.2% in 2020. Over this period, a higher complexity of cases were treated minimally-invasively and increased use of neochord implantation ± limited leaflet resection was observed. Patients operated minimally invasively had longer aortic cross-clamp times (94 vs. 88 min, p = 0.001) but shorter ventilation times (4.4 vs. 4.8 h, p = 0.002) and hospital stays (5 vs. 6 days, p ConclusionA focused approach towards minimally invasive MVr has transformed the overall MVr strategy (incision; repair techniques) at our institution, leading to a growth in MVr volume and improved repair rates without significant complications. On this foundation, robotic MVr was first introduced at our institution in 2021 with excellent outcomes. This emphasizes the importance of building a competent team to perform these challenging operations, especially during the initial learning curve.</p

Repeated exposure of infants at complementary feeding to a vegetable puree increases acceptance as effectively as flavor-flavor learning and more effectively than flavor-nutrient learning.

Clé UT : 000320894800025 ; Supported by the European Community's Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) under the grant agreement no. FP7-245012-HabEat.International audienceChildren's vegetable consumption is below the public health recommendations. This study aimed to compare learning mechanisms to increase vegetable acceptance in infants at complementary feeding, namely repeated exposure (RE), flavor-flavor learning (FFL), and flavor-nutrient learning (FNL); measure the stability of the learning effect; and examine the impact of infants' feeding history on vegetable acceptance. The study was composed of a preexposure test, an exposure period, a postexposure test, and tests at 2-wk, 3-mo, and 6-mo follow-ups. At pre- and postexposure, a basic artichoke purée and carrot purée were presented to 95 French infants (6.4 ± 0.8 mo). During the exposure period, infants were randomly split into 3 groups and were exposed 10 times to the basic (RE group; 2 kJ/g; n = 32), a sweet (FFL group; 2 kJ/g; n = 32), or an energy-dense (FNL group; 6 kJ/g; n = 31) artichoke purée 2 or 3 times/wk. To evaluate acceptance, intake (g) and liking were recorded at home by parents. Between pre- and postexposure, intake of the basic artichoke purée significantly increased in the RE (+63%) and FFL (+39%) groups but not in the FNL group; liking increased only in the RE group (+21%). After exposure, artichoke was as much consumed and as much liked as carrot only in the RE group. Learning of artichoke acceptance was stable up to 3 mo postexposure. Initial artichoke intake was significantly related to the number of vegetables offered before the study started. RE is as effective as and simpler to implement than FFL and more effective than FNL for increasing vegetable acceptance at complementary feeding