Failed MitraClip therapy: surgical revision in high-risk patients

Background: MitraClip implantation is a valid interventional option that offers acceptable short-term results. Surgery after failed MitraClip procedures remains challenging in high-risk patients. The data on these cases are limited by the small sample numbers. Aim: The aim of our study is to show, that mitral valve surgery could be possible and more advantageous, even in high-risk patients. Methods: Between 2010 and 2016, nine patients underwent mitral valve surgery after failed MitraClip therapy at our institution. Results: The patients’ ages ranged from 19 to 75 years (mean: 61.2 ± 19.6 years). The median interval between the MitraClip intervention and surgical revision was 45 days (range: 0 to 1087 days). In eight of nine patients, the MitraClip intervention was initially successful and the mitral regurgitation was reduced. Only one patient had undergone cardiac surgery previously. Intra-operatively, leaflet perforation or rupture, MitraClip detachment, and chordal or papillary muscle rupture were potentially the causes of recurrent mitral regurgitation. There were three early deaths. One year after surgery, the six remaining patients were alive. Conclusions: Mitral valve surgery can be successfully performed after failed MitraClip therapy in high-risk patients. The initial indication for MitraClip therapy should be considered carefully for possible surgical repair

Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with active infective endocarditis

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement remains the gold standard of treatment in patients with active infective endocarditis. Such procedures tend to carry a significantly higher operative risk when compared to the conventional aortic valve replacement for a non-infective aortic valve disease. Sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) has been introduced into cardiac surgery to allow for a simpler implementation of minimally invasive procedures. Although SU-AVR in several extended indications has proven to be successful, the data on the implementation of SU-AVR in patients with infective aortic valve endocarditis remain scarce. The aim of the study was to examine the feasibility of SU-AVR in high-risk patients with active infective aortic valve endocarditis. METHODS: Between December 2019 and March 2022, a total of 151 consecutive patients underwent a SU-AVR for various indications at our institution. Of those, in 13 consecutive high-risk patients SU-AVR was indicated because of infective aortic valve endocarditis. In all cases Perceval S aortic valve prosthesis (Corcym, Saluggia, Italy) was used and the implantation has been performed with Snugger-method. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients at operation was 74.05±11.6 years. Eight of the patients suffered from prosthesis endocarditis while the other five patients presented with the endocarditis of the native aortic valve. All patients suffered from multiple comorbidities, as reflected by a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 47.9%±23.1% and EuroSCORE II of 28.7%±22.0%. In 8 patients (61.5%) a concomitant procedure was necessary. Also 8 patients (61.5%) underwent a redo procedure. Bypass- and cross-clamp (CC) times were 89.8±33.6 and 59.1±27.8 minutes, respectively. We observed no paravalvular leakage and no cases of left-ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Postoperative mean gradients after SU-AVR implantation were 8.1±4.8 mmHg. CONCLUSIONS: SU-AVR in patients presenting with active infective endocarditis is a safe and feasible surgical alternative to the conventional operation. Clearly, this operative approach should be considered particularly for high-risk patients in whom successful operative outcomes are determined by a reduction in bypass and CC time. SU-AVR provides excellent hemodynamic performance with a low risk of paravalvular leakage and low transvalvular gradients, whilst simplifying the surgical procedure

Conventional Biological versus Sutureless Aortic Valve Prostheses in Combined Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement

Background: Sutureless aortic valve prostheses have proven to provide a significant decrease in procedural, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time, leading to a significant reduction in mortality risk in elderly high-risk cohorts. In this study, we sought to review our institutional experience on the sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) and the concomitant mitral valve replacement (SMVR), comparing the combined conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with SMVR. Methods and Material: Between March 2018 and July 2022, 114 consecutive patients underwent a combined aortic and mitral valve replacement at our institution. We stratified the patients according to the operative procedures into two groups and matched them 1:2: Group 1 underwent a combined conventional SAVR and SMVR (n = 46), and Group 2 included combined SU-AVR with Perceval prosthesis and SMVR (n = 23). Results: No significant differences in the preoperative characteristics were present. SU-AVR combined with SMVR demonstrated excellent haemodynamic performance, comparable to that of SAVR plus SMVR, with median postoperative gradients over the aortic valve of 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 1 and 4 mmHg (IQR 3.0-4.0) in Group 2 (p = 0.67). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative major adverse events such as death, stroke, myocardial infarction and kidney failure between the groups. There was also no significant difference in the permanent pacemaker implantation rate, paravalvular leakage or valve dislocation. We also could not detect any significant difference in postoperative mortality between the groups. Conclusions: SU-AVR has proven to be a reliable alternative to conventional valve prostheses in patients with multivalve disease undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement, offering shorter procedural time and outstanding hemodynamic performance compared to the conventional surgical method

Surgical Treatment of Cardiac Metastases: Analysis of a 13-Year Single-Center Experience

Background Cardiac metastases are more common than primary malignant tumors of the heart and are usually treated surgically as a palliative approach. In this study, we reviewed our experience with the surgical treatment of patients with cardiac metastases of various types of malignant tumors. Methods Between 2003 and 2016, 10 patients underwent surgery for cardiac metastases at our institution. Results The mean age was 53.5 +/- 19 years. Female patients made up 60% ( n = 6) of the collective. The cohort included cardiac metastases of diverse origins (peripheral sarcomas, melanoma, rectal carcinoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma). The left side of the heart was more frequently affected ( n = 7). In only six patients, the primary malignancy was known at the time of cardiac surgery. The interval between the first diagnosis of the primary tumor and cardiac metastases ranged from simultaneous diagnosis to up to 19 years. At the time of the diagnosis of the cardiac metastases, seven patients already had multiple metastases: all seven patients had pulmonary metastases, and three of them additionally had hepatic, cerebral, or osseous metastases. Only four patients were symptomatic (atrial fibrillation, pericardial effusion, tachycardia with chest pain, dyspnea). There was no in-hospital death. The postoperative course was uneventful overall. The one- and two-year survival rates were similar, that is, 76%. The median follow-up time was 5.4 years. Conclusions Surgical intervention for treating cardiac metastases is associated with uneventful clinical outcome and acceptable survival in this critically ill population. Control of the primary malignancy, and maybe other metastases, determines the survival

Early and long-term results of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through a right mini-thoracotomy approach: a retrospective propensity-score matched analysis

Background Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MVS) via right mini-thoracotomy has recently attracted a lot of attention. Minimally invasive MVS shows postoperative results that are comparable to those of conventional MVS through the median sternotomy as per various earlier studies. Methods Between 2000 and 2016, a total of 669 isolated mitral valve procedures for isolated mitral valve regurgitation were performed. A propensity score-matched analysis was generated for the elimination of the differences in relevant preoperative risk factors between the cohorts and included 227 patient pairs. Only degenerative mitral valve regurgitation was included. The aim of our study was to examine if the minimally MVS is superior to the conventional approach through sternotomy based on a retrospective propensity-matched analysis. The primary endpoints were early mortality and long-term survival. The secondary endpoints included postoperative complications. Results The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher within the conventional sternotomy cohort (3.1%, n = 7 vs 0.4%, n = 1 for the minimally invasive cohort; p = 0.032). The incidence of stroke and exploration for bleeding was comparable. In contrast, the necessity for dialysis was significantly lower in the minimally invasive cohort (p = 0.044). Postoperative pain was not significantly lower in the minimally invasive MVS cohort (p = 0.862). While patients who underwent minimally invasive MVS experienced longer bypass and cross-clamp times, their lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital, did not differ from the conventionally operated collective (p = 0.779 and p = 0.516), respectively. The mitral valve repair rate of 81.1% in the minimally invasive cohort was significantly superior to that of the conventional approach, which was 46.3% (p < 0.0001). The one-, five-, and 10-year survival rates were significantly higher in the minimally invasive cohort compared to the conventional approach (96%, 90%, and 84% vs. 89%, 85%, and 70%; log rank p = 0.004). Conclusion Despite prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamping times, the minimally invasive MVS may be considered a safe approach that is equivalent to standard median sternotomy with lower early mortality and superior long-term survival