A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether patients with chronic kidney disease who required dialysis that undergo valve surgery have better surgical recovery rates with bioprostheses than with mechanical valves. Altogether more than 96 papers were found using the reported search, of which 12 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing cardiac surgery are very fragile, with high in-hospital mortality rates (13–36%) and limited life expectancy (15–42 months in selected studies). Two studies outlined that diabetic ESRD, neurological impairment, age at the operation and poor ventricular function are the strongest predictors of early and late morbidity and mortality. Based on American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) 1998 valvular guidelines, bioprostheses were considered a contraindication in dialysis patients; this statement derived from anecdotal reports of accelerated valve degeneration. Structural valve deterioration was reported in only 5 of 1347 patients who received bioprosthesis through the studies and independent from implantation site. Likelihood of degeneration is low, with a calculated valve-excision rate of 7%, and occurred in a broad range of time (from 10 to 156 months). The AHA/ACC 2006 valvular revised guidelines removed the previous statement (1998) of class IIa recommendation for mechanical valves and class III for tissue valves; in the focus update of 2008, there is still no specific indication for valve selection in dialysis patients, but difficulties in maintaining anticoagulation in these patients was noted. Stroke, haemorrhage and gastro-intestinal bleeding events occurred in almost 15% of patients with mechanical valves during the follow-up, while bioprostheses showed an average event rate of 3.9%. All but one of the selected studies reported no differences in survival between mechanical and biological valves; in five of seven studies, the patients who received bioprostheses were older (mechanical vs biological average 53 years vs 61.4 years), in one study, patients had undergone dialysis for longer period of time, and, in another study, they had suffered from more previous myocardial infarction (mechanical vs biological 9.1% vs 36.2%). Therefore, survivals have been biased in favour of mechanical valves. Taking together these data, biological valves are a suitable treatment for dialysis-dependent patients and, while not superior to mechanical valves in survival due to the aforementioned study biases, exhibit lower valve-related and anti-coagulation related events.

Objective: Aortic valve replacement in minimally invasive approach has shown to improve clinical outcomes even with a prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time. Sutureless aortic valve implantation may ideally shorten operative time. We describe our initial experience with the sutureless 3f Enable (Medtronic, Inc, ATS Medical, Minneapolis, MN USA) aortic bioprosthesis implanted in minimally invasive approach in high-risk patients. Methods: Between May 2010 and May 2011, thirteen patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent aortic valve replacement with the 3f Enable bioprosthesis through an upper V-type ministernotomy interrupted at the second intercostal space. The mean ± SD age was 77 ± 3.9 years (range, 72–83 years), 10 patients were women, and the mean ± SD logistic EuroSCORE was 15% ± 13.5%. Echocardiography was performed preoperatively, at postoperative day 1, at discharge, and at follow-up. Clinical data, adverse events, and patient outcomes were recorded retrospectively. The median follow-up time was 4 months (interquartile range, 2–10 months). Results: Most of the implanted valves were 21 mm in diameter (19–25 mm). The CPB and ACC times were 100.2 ± 25.3 and 66.4 ± 18.6 minutes. At short-term follow-up, the mean ± SD pressure gradient was 14 ± 4.9 mm Hg; one patient showed trivial paravalvular leakage. No patients died during hospital stay or at follow-up. Conclusions: The 3f Enable sutureless bioprosthesis implanted in minimally invasive approach through an upper V-type ministernotomy is a feasible, safe, and reproducible procedure. Hemodynamic and clinical data are promising. This innovative approach might be considered as an alternative in high-risk patients. Reduction of CPB and ACC time is possible with increasing of experience and sutureless evolution of actual technology.

The paper aims to show that Rahel Jaeggi's objections to Walzer's model of internal critique are in many respects inconsistent, and above all that these objections are a sign of a political deficit in the neo-Hegelian methodology adopted by Jaeggi to develop her model of immanent critique. The same deficit concerns Jaeggi's use of Marx's model of the critique of ideology, which can be fruitfully reworked by Walzer's reinterpretation of Gramsci's theory of the struggle for hegemony.

We describe a patch augmentation of the anterior leaflet of the tricuspid valve to address tricuspid valve regurgitation due to leaflet retraction. The area of the anterior leaflet is measured using a tricuspid valve annuloplasty sizer; a glutaraldehyde-fixed autologous pericardial patch is trimmed with slight 5 mm oversize. The anterior leaflet is detached and the patch is sutured with three 5/0 running interlocked sutures, then an annuloplasty is performed with an undersized ring. This technique offers an easy and reproducible tool to address tricuspid regurgitation due to lack of leaflet coaptation.

The article is focused on Honneth’s teleology of history, presented as a historical process of gradual realization of an immanent normative ‘telos’, and not only as a form of axiological evaluation of events and social institutions. The author aims to show that this teleology implies a series of problems both on the level of historical analysis and with respect to the theoretical-political and critical-social outcomes of the new Hegelian critical theory. Particularly, it seems to marginalize the contingent character of historical-political conflicts and the related possibility of regressive implications and consequences of such conflicts, leading to a de-politicization of the immanent theoretical framework at stake.