Japan's largest platform for academic e-journals: J-STAGE is a full text database for reviewed academic papers published by Japanese societies

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this multicentre retrospective study was to compare long-term clinical and haemodynamic outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Magna Ease (CEME) bioprosthesis by patient age.METHODS: We included consecutive patients who underwent isolated and combined surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with CEME valve between January 2008 and March 2020 at 4 cardiac surgery centres in Italy. Survival distribution was evaluated at follow-up according to age and surgery type (combined or isolated AVR), together with freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD), reoperation and combined events, i.e. SVD, reoperation, endocarditis and thromboembolic events.RESULTS: A total of 1027 isolated and 1121 combined AVR were included; 776 patients were younger than 65 years whereas 1372 were 65 years or older. The 30-day Valve-Academic-Research-Consortium mortality was 2% (<65 years) and 6% (≥ 65 years) (P < 0.001), whereas it was 3% for isolated AVR and 7% for combined AVR (P < 0.001). The 12-year survival was 81% for those younger than 65 years vs 45% for those equal to or older than 65 years (P < 0.001), whereas they were 61% vs 49% for isolated and combined AVR (P = 0.10). The 12-year freedom from combined events, excluding death, was 79% for those younger than 65 years vs 87% for those equal to or older than (P = 0.51), whereas they were 83% for isolated and 86% for combined AVR (P = 0.10). The 12-year freedom from SVD was 93% and 93% in patients younger than 65 and those equal to or older than 65 years (P = 0.63), and the results were comparable even in cases with isolated and combined AVR (92% vs 94%, P = 0.21). A multivariable Cox analysis including gender, presence of patient–prosthesis mismatch, isolated AVR and age showed that only the age was an independent risk factor for the incidence of SVD (P = 0.029).CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes from this large multicentre analysis demonstrated that a CEME bioprosthesis provides good clinical results and long-term durability even in patients younger than 65 years. Furthermore, the hazard for SVD has been shown to be lower for older age.Clinical trial registration number: 105n/AO/21.

Background: Minimally invasive procedures have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing the recovery times while ensuring optimal results and minimizing complications. Regarding the coronary artery surgical revascularization field, the evolution of techniques and technology is permitting new surgical strategies that are increasingly precise and suitable for each patient. We present an initial single center experience with a case series of patients successfully treated with combined robotic harvesting of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft (MIDCAB) for the anastomosis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent minimally invasive coronary artery revascularization with the use of two combined techniques at our Institution between January 2021 and October 2022. Results: A total of 17 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting with the described approach. The median cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times were 83 min (76–115) and 38 min (32–58), respectively. The median intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay were 2 days (1–4) and 8 days (6–11), respectively. The procedure’s success was achieved in 100% of patients. The 30-day mortality was 0%. Conclusions: Considering all the limitations related to the small sample, the presented results of a hybrid approach for minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) appears to be encouraging and acceptable. The main advantage of this approach is related to the reduction of postoperative pain and pulmonary complications.

(1) Background: Although transcatheter technology is rapidly growing and represents a promising strategy, the surgical approach remains the best way to repair a degenerative mitral valve regurgitation. In this context, robotic surgery is technologically the most advanced method of minimally invasive mitral valve repair. The aim of this study is to present the preliminary results of the initial single-center experience with a new robotic mitral valve repair program. (2) Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent robotic mitral valve repair at our Institution between January and September 2021. (3) Results: A total of 29 patients underwent mitral valve repair with annuloplasty and chordal implantation to treat degenerative mitral regurgitation. The procedure’s success was achieved in 97% of patients. The 30-day cardiac-related mortality was 0%. The median CPB and cross-clamp times were 189 and 111 min, respectively, with a progressive reduction from the beginning of the robotic program. (4) Conclusions: Considering all the limitations related to the small sample, the presented results of robotic mitral valve repair appear to be encouraging and acceptable. A careful patient selection, a dedicated team, and a robust experience in surgical mitral valve repair are the fundamentals to start a new robotic mitral surgery program.