Conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) via a full sternotomy is the standard surgical approach for aortic valve replacement. Minimal access aortic valve replacement (MAAVR) is commonly performed via a partial sternotomy and a right minithoracotomy. Such procedures aim not only to reduce the invasiveness but to offer the same quality, safety and results of the conventional approach. Our goal was to compare both procedures by performing a meta-analysis of reports with risk adjustment that performed a propensity-matched analysis. Relevant articles were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Scopus database based on predefined criteria and end-points. The early and late outcomes and complications were compared in the selected studies. A total of 4558 patients from 9 studies were enrolled; 2279 (50%) underwent CAVR and 2279 (50%) underwent MAAVR. There was a significantly lower rate of postoperative low output syndrome (1.4% vs 2.3%, P = 0.05) and atrial fibrillation (11.7% vs 15.9%, P = 0.01) in the MAAVR than in the CAVR group, respectively. In contrast, aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the MAAVR group (P < 0.05). Finally, the incidence of early deaths (1.5% vs 2.2%, P = 0.14), stroke (1.4% vs 2%, P = 0.20), myocardial infarction (0.4% vs 0.5%, P = 0.65), renal injury (4.5% vs 6%, P = 0.71), respiratory complications (9% vs 10.1%, P = 0.45), re-exploration for bleeding (4.9% vs 4.1%, P = 0.27) and pacemaker implantation (3.3% vs 4.1%, P = 0.31) was similar in both groups, respectively. In summary, even though MAAVR procedure, either through partial sternotomy or right minithoracotomy, provides patient satisfaction due to the smaller incision and better cosmetics, MAAVR is as safe as the CAVR procedure. Although MAAVR takes slightly longer, it was not associated with greater cardiopulmonary bypass-related adverse effects. Interestingly, MAAVR shows a lower incidence of low cardiac output syndrome and atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES Minimal access aortic valve replacement has become routine in many institutions. Aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between conventional and minimal access aortic valve replacement. METHODS We retrospectively analysed the data of 2103 patients who underwent primary, isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) in our institution between January 2001 and May 2012 with a minimal access AVR (MAAVR) via the upper partial ministernotomy approach (n = 936) or conventional AVR (CAVR) via the full sternotomy approach (n = 1167). After propensity score matching considering potential confounders [age, sex (female), weight, height, preoperative serum creatinine level, previous myocardial infarction, LV-EF and aortic valve pathology (isolated AS)], 585 matched patients were included in each group. RESULTS Mean age (65 ± 10.5 vs 65.7 ± 11.5 years, P = 0.23), gender (females 37.2%, P = 0.9), aortic cross-clamp time (65.6 ± 18.4 vs 64.3 ± 19.8 min, P = 0.25) and postoperative blood loss [median (IQR) 400 (224–683) vs 400 (250–610) ml, P = 0.83) were similar in MAAVR and CAVR group. Thirty-day mortality was also not significantly different (1.5 vs 1.7%, P = 0.74, respectively). In contrast, CPB times were significantly longer in MAAVR (93.5 ± 25 vs 88 ± 28 min, P < 0.001). Intraoperative and postoperative autologous blood transfusions were significantly lower in MAAVR (927.2 ± 425.6 vs 1036.4 ± 599.6 ml, P < 0.001 and 170.2 ± 47.6 vs 243.5 ± 89.3 ml, P < 0.001, respectively). Intubation time was significantly shorter in MAAVR [median (IQR) 7 (5–11) vs 8 (6–14) h, P = 0.01). The incidence of renal insufficiency (creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dl) and respiratory insufficiency (need for non-invasive ventilation, reintubation or tracheotomy) was significantly lower in MAAVR (9 vs 16%, P < 0.001 and 8.5 vs 11.8%, P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In comparison with CAVR, our study shows that MAAVR is a safe and effective procedure associated with low mortality rate and good long-term survival rates. In addition to that, MAAVR was associated with shorter ventilation times, lower rate of autologous blood transfusion, as well as a lower rate of postoperative respiratory and renal insufficiency. Because of the superior cosmetic results, we therefore advocate MAAVR as the procedure of choice for primary isolated AVR.

Myocardial revascularization in coronary artery disease via percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery effectively relieves symptoms, significantly improves prognosis and quality of life when combined with guideline-directed medical therapy. Hybrid coronary revascularization is a promising alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG in selected patients and is defined as a planned and/or intended combination of consecutive CABG surgery using at least 1 internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending (LAD), and catheter-based coronary intervention to the non-LAD vessels for the treatment of multivessel disease. The main indications for hybrid coronary revascularization are (i) to achieve complete revascularization in patients who cannot undergo conventional CABG, (ii) to treat patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease with a non-LAD vessel as the culprit lesion that needs revascularization and (iii) in highly select patients with multivessel disease with complex LAD lesions and simple percutaneous coronary intervention targets for all other vessels. Hybrid coronary revascularization patients receive a left internal mammary artery graft to the LAD artery through a minimal incision along with percutaneous coronary intervention to the remaining diseased coronary vessels using latest generation drug-eluting stents. A collaborative environment with a dedicated heart team is the optimal platform to perform such interventions, which aim to improve the quality and outcome of myocardial revascularization. This position paper analyses the rationale of hybrid coronary revascularization and the currently available evidence on the various techniques and delves into the sequence of the interventions and pharmacological management during and after the procedure.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the standard therapy for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis (AS). TAVI-outcomes are widely investigated in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but less is known about infectious complications after TAVI. We aimed to compare early and mid-term infectious outcomes of patients undergoing TAVI or SAVR. Methods: The present study is a prospective single-centre study including 200 consecutive patients between 06/2014–03/2015 undergoing TAVI (either transfemoral or transapical and transaortic, n=47+53=100) or SAVR (either isolated or concomitant with CABG, n=52+48=100). The mean age and log. EuroSCORE were significantly different between both groups (81±6 versus 69±11 years, P<0.001 and 23.1%±13.8% versus 8.7%±9.5%, P<0.001). Primary endpoints included wound healing disorders, respiratory and urinary tract infections and incidence of endocarditis or sepsis within hospital stay. Secondary endpoints included infectious parameters, infectious related rehospitalisation and 2-year mortality. Results: Primary endpoints showed no difference in overall TAVI- versus SAVR-groups regarding respiratory- (14% versus 19%, P=0.45), urinary-tract (7% versus 4%, P=0.54) infections, sepsis (5% versus 6%, P=1.0), endocarditis (0% versus 1%, P=1.0) or 30-day mortality (10% versus 4%, P=0.09), except for wound disorders, which were significantly lower in the TAVI-group (1% versus 8%, P=0.035), respectively. Secondary endpoints reported no difference regarding infectious related rehospitalisation (4% versus 4%, P=1.0), but significantly higher 2-year mortality (28% versus 16%, P=0.048) in the TAVI-group. Conclusions: So far, little has been studied about infectious complications after TAVI. This study reports no difference between the overall TAVI and SAVR groups regarding infectious complications. However, SAVR group show more wound healing disorders but less mortality than TAVI group.

OBJECTIVES: Mitral valve repair (MVR) is considered the treatment of choice for mitral valve (MV) regurgitation. However, MVR in acute native MV infective endocarditis is technically challenging and not commonly performed. Our goal was to report our outcomes of MVR in acute native MV infective endocarditis.METHODS: Between January 2016 and December 2017, 35 patients presenting with acute native MV infective endocarditis underwent MVR. Primary end points were successful MVR and freedom from recurrent endocarditis. Secondary end point was the postoperative incidence of major adverse events.RESULTS: The mean age was 58 ± 13 years (74% men) and the median logistic EuroSCORE was 17.1%. Twenty patients underwent isolated MVR; the other 15 patients underwent concomitant procedures. MVR was performed with removal of the vegetation (vegectomy), limited resection of the infected tissue, direct closure of the defect, besides annuloplasty in all patients. Mean intensive care and hospital stays were 5 and 17 days, respectively. All-cause mortality was 11% (4/35) at 30 days and a total of 23% (8/35) within a follow-up period of 10 ± 7.7 months. Endocarditis recurred in 2 patients 15 and 8 months after surgery, respectively. Both underwent successful MV re-repair. Follow-up echocardiography indicated none-to-trace, mild or moderate regurgitation in 15, 10 and 2 patients, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Although MVR in acute native MV infective endocarditis is a complex procedure, it offers a treatment option for such patients with acceptable short-term results. Limited resection in addition to annuloplasty is our preferred method of repair. Nevertheless, long-term results in a larger cohort are still mandatory.

Coronary endarterectomy (CEA) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is controversially discussed, however CEA is considered as a last option for severely diseased coronary arteries. We therefore aimed to evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing CABG with CEA. We present a retrospective single surgeon's experience. Between 05/1999-12/2017 426 patients underwent CABG with CEA. Follow-up imaging was proposed to all surviving patients, and only patients accepting were considered for this study. This resulted in a cohort of 112 patients within a mean postoperative interval of 53±49 months. Study endpoints are graft patency, overall survival and incidence of major-adverse-events. Mean patients’ age was 65.5±9.4years; 90.2% were male. A total of 139 CEAs were performed (24 patients had more than one CEA-graft). Most of patients (91.1%) presented with three-vessel disease. Mean Syntax-Score was 29.8±8.5. Four±1.3 grafts were constructed per patient; CEA target coronaries were either totally (31.9%) or sub-totally (68.1%) occluded. CEA was performed at LAD- or RCA-territory (42.4% each) or LCX-territory (15.1%). Early postoperative outcomes reported stroke in two patients, myocardial infarction in four patients with two patients dying. Imaging follow-up reported 119 (out of 139) patent versus 20 occluded CEA-grafts (17 venous- & 3 arterial). Long-term survival was 77.7% and freedom from major-adverse-events was 63.3% within mean follow-up time of 83±67 months. Although CEA is a complex and second line procedure, it offers a surgical option to allow myocardial revascularization in patients with diffuse or severe coronary artery disease. Good short and long-term results can be achieved.