Mitral valve repair (MVRepair) has become the procedure of choice to correct severe degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR), due to its documented superiority to valve replacement regarding long-term survival, freedom from valve-related adverse events and preservation of left ventricular (LV) function. The refinement of MVRepair techniques has rendered almost all valves (more than 95%) amenable to repair with a 15-year freedom from reoperation of 90%. The concept of ‘centres of excellence for MVRepair’ has emerged, encouraging referring doctors to select the most experienced institutions or individual surgeons to deal with the most complex cases, based on repair volume, appropriate peri-procedural imaging and data regarding expected outcomes (repair, mortality and durability of repair). Based on the good results, operating on asymptomatic patients with severe MR is now widely accepted, prophylactically avoiding the dire consequences of chronic MR, such as LV function deterioration/enlargement, and development of atrial fibrillation and pulmonary hypertension. In reference centres, where the repair rate is over 95% for all types of disease with <1% mortality, it has become standard practice in nearly 50%–60% of all patients submitted to MVRepair. Finally, recent advances in the surgical treatment with the purpose of reducing invasiveness and surgical trauma, through partial sternotomy or mini-thoracotomy (video-assisted with or without robotics), are now being increasingly performed in 20%–30% of centres, claiming comparable results to conventional surgery. In addition, transcatheter technology, particularly the MitraClip, is evolving and treading its way in the treatment of high-risk patients with severe MR, but the results are still short of ideal.

To evaluate the feasibility of mitral valve repair in patients with anterior leaflet (ALP) or bileaflet prolapse (BLP) and identify factors predisposing patients to replacement. To compare long-term survival of patients submitted to repair (Group Repair) against those submitted to replacement (Group Replacement), and investigate causes of early and late failures of repair. From January 1992 through December 2012, 768 patients with ALP or BLP were submitted to mitral valve surgery, of whom 501 had degenerative involvement [Myxomatous (Myx)—336 (67.1%) or fibroelastic deficiency (Fed)—165 (32.9%)] and constituted the study population. Isolated ALP was present in 274 patients (54.7%) and BLP in 227 (45.3%). Associated procedures were admitted. Patients with Fed were significantly older (64.4 ± 12.1 vs 54.8 ± 15.5 years, P < 0.001), more symptomatic (63 vs 44.3%; P < 0.001) and with higher incidence of atrial fibrillation (43.6 vs 26.2%; P < 0.001). Repair was achieved in 94.8% of patients with an overall 30-day mortality rate of 1.2% (0.3% in the last decade) and no differences regarding aetiology. Age, moderate to severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, previous cardiac surgery, multiple segment prolapse, mitral calcification, leaflet retraction and the performing surgeon were independently associated with replacement. Group Repair patients had a greater adjusted 20-year survival by comparison with Group Replacement (43.4 ± 5.5 vs 13.6 ± 11.3%; P < 0.001) and similar to that of the age- and sex-adjusted general population (P = 0.10). Valve replacement, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III–IV, pulmonary hypertension and LV dysfunction emerged as independent predictors of late mortality. Patients in NYHA class I–II experienced a higher repair rate (98.4%) and better survival than those in Class III–IV. Two repair patients were reoperated during the first year after surgery (early failure) and both were ‘rerepaired’. Late failure was observed in 21 patients, mostly for progression of the disease. The 20-year rate of freedom from reoperation was 88 ± 2.7%, significantly worse in ALP patients (P = 0.040), and not different between Fed and Myx. Patients with ALP or BLP can be submitted to surgery with low mortality and great probability of repair in expert hands. Patients should be operated on at an early phase (asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic), because there is a higher probability of repair and greater benefit on long-term survival.

To define the impact of surgical strategy [concomitant mitral valve surgery or isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR)] in patients with moderate secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) at the time of AVR. From January 1999 to December 2009, 3339 patients underwent AVR of whom 255 had secondary MR >2+ and constituted the study population. Patients were stratified into two groups, with (Group A, n = 94, 36.8%) and without concomitant mitral valve surgery (Group B, n = 161, 63.2%). Follow-up up to 12 years (1076 patient-years) was analysed for survival, valve-related events and persistent MR. Predictors of late mortality and persistent MR were further analysed. A case-match analysis [age, gender, New York Heart Association (NYHA) and left ventricular ejection fraction] was performed, excluding patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The mean age of the population was 67.0 ± 11.7 years, 63.5% male and 64.7% in NYHA III–IV. Group B patients were significantly older and had higher incidence of coronary disease, hypertension and mitral calcification. They also had a higher ejection fraction and transaortic gradients, and lower MR grade (mean MR: 2.8 vs 3.2) and pulmonary artery pressure. Mitral surgery consisted mainly of annuloplasty procedures (96%). Only 2 patients from the entire cohort were reoperated on/for the mitral valve. Thirty-day mortality rate was 0.3%. There was no difference in long-term survival and valve-related complications, even after case-matched analysis. CAD, history of cerebrovascular accident, permanent atrial fibrillation, renal failure and persistence of MR emerged as independent predictors of late mortality (P < 0.05). MR improved in 67.4% of patients from Group B against 82.3% from Group A (P = 0.011). Atrial fibrillation (AF) and higher MR grade at discharge were the only independent predictors for persistent MR (P < 0.05). Patients with persistent MR early after AVR had decreased late survival (hazard ratio: 4.9, P = 0.001). Secondary MR improves after AVR even without mitral surgery. Concomitant mitral surgery was significantly associated with greater improvement of postoperative MR, but had no significant impact on survival. However, patients who did not improve immediately after AVR had compromised survival. Patients in AF should have mitral valve repair at the time of surgery.

To analyze the short-term outcome of aortic root enlargement (ARE) using death and adverse events as end points. From January 1999 through December 2009, 3339 patients were subjected to aortic valve replacement (AVR). A total of 678 were considered to have small aortic roots (SARs) in which an aortic prosthesis size 21 mm or smaller was implanted. ARE using a bovine pericardial patch was performed in another 218 patients, who constitute the study population. This comprised 174 females (79.8%); the mean age was 69.4 ± 13.4 years (8-87, median 74 years), the body surface area (BSA) was 1.59 ± 0.15m² and the body mass index (BMI) 25.77 ± 3.16 k gm⁻², and 192 (88.5%) were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) II-III. Preoperative echocardiography revealed significant left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in 17 patients (8%), a mean aortic valve area of 0.57 ± 0.27 cm², and a mean gradient of 62.51 ± 21.25 mm Hg. A septal myectomy was performed in 129 subjects (59.2%), and other associated procedures, mostly coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), in 60 (27.5%). Bioprostheses were implanted in 161 patients (73.9%). The mean valve size was 21.9 ± 1.0 (21-25). The mean extracorporeal circulation (ECC) and aortic clamping times were 82.8 ± 19.8 min and 56.8 ± 12.5 min, respectively. Hospital mortality was 0.9% (n=2) for ARE as compared with 0.6% (n=4) for the SAR group (p=0.8). Inotropic support was required in only 13 (5.9%) patients and the first 24-h chest drainage was 336.2 ± 202 ml. Other complications included pacemaker implantation (7.8%), acute renal failure (10.6%), respiratory (4.1%), and CVA/transient ischemic attack (CVA/TIA) (3.2%). Postoperative echocardiographic evaluation showed a significant decrease in peak and mean aortic gradients (23.7 ± 9.5 and 14 ± 6.2 mm Hg, respectively, p<0.0001). The mean indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) was 0.92 ± 0.01 cm² m⁻² (vs 0.84±0.07 cm² m⁻², in SAR, p<0.0001). Only 11% of patients (n=24) with ARE exhibited moderate patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) and none had severe PPM. Mean hospital stay was 9.7 ± 9.29 days (median 7 days). With the growing number of patients with degenerative aortic valve pathology, mainly an older population, sometimes with calcified and fragile aortic wall, the issue of dealing with an SAR poses the dilemma of whether to implant a smaller prosthesis and admit some degree of PPM, or to enlarge the aortic root. This study demonstrates that the latter can be done in a safe and reproducible manner.

OBJECTIVES Although oesophagectomy can be curative for patients with oesophageal cancer (OC), it may be associated with high morbidity and decreased quality of life. Identifying risk factors for early systemic progression or death after oesophagectomy may help to guide treatment choices in at-risk patients. METHODS Patients undergoing oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant therapy for OC (November 1987 to January 2013) were reviewed, excluding deaths ≤3 months. Univariate predictors of death ≤1 year of operation were explored by logistic regression. Significant predictors (P ≤ 0.10) were included in a multivariate model. A risk factor index was created based on the number of significant risk factors in individual patients. RESULTS Of 581 patients, 238 had neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemotherapy and radiation followed by oesophagectomy. Of these, 15% (n = 36) died ≤1 year following oesophagectomy and 69% of those from documented cancer recurrence. Clinical predictors of death ≤1 year by multivariate analysis included performance status >0 (HR 2.19; CI 1.02–4.69), poor (G3) tumour differentiation (HR 2.67; CI 1.14–6.21) and lack of clinical response (no response or progression versus complete and partial response) to neoadjuvant therapy (HR 2.77; CI 1.07–7.15). For patients with all factors evaluable (n = 167), variables were summed to derive a cumulative risk factor index, 0–3. An increased risk factor index (≥2) was highly associated with increased risk of death ≤1 year postoperatively (HR 4.84; CI 1.93–12.16), as well as with poor overall survival. CONCLUSIONS Clinically defined risk factors that predict early mortality following oesophagectomy include performance status, poor tumour differentiation and clinical response. In patients with at least two of these risk factors, 29% will die within 1 year of surgery. These patients should be identified and individual consideration given to less morbid surgical strategies or to alternative treatments.