Background: Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the standard procedure to distinguish tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) from bicuspid aortic valve (BAV). Published studies assessed the accuracy of TTE for BAV under ideal conditions. Conversely, we aimed at assessing accuracy of TTE for BAV under routine conditions. Methods: This retrospective, cross-sectional study of 216 adults included 132 men aged 62±14 years. Of these, 108 had BAV and 108 were age-matched individuals with TAV. All diagnoses were confirmed at surgery. We assessed TTE in two patient groups. First, in the (I) group of all 216 individuals, where we assessed accuracy for BAV according to the original diagnoses as documented by the primary investigators during original TTE examination. Second, we assessed accuracy for BAV according to expert re-evaluation in (II) all 158 TTE with availability of original recordings. Third, we performed a meta-analysis of published results on the accuracy of TTE for BAV according to PRISMA standards. Results: Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of (I) primary investigators was 46.3%, 97.2, and 71.8% as compared to (II) expert re-evaluation with 59.7%, 93%, and 77.8%, respectively. Sensitivity was significantly higher at re-evaluation (P<0.001). TTE at a non-tertiary care center (P=0.012), presence of aortic aneurysm (P=0.001) and presence of severe aortic valve calcification (P=0.003) predicted an inaccurate diagnosis of BAV. Conversely, meta-analysis of published TTE studies identified a pooled sensitivity of 87.7% and a pooled specificity of 88.3% for BAV. Conclusions: The current study shows that TTE yields almost ideal diagnostic accuracy when ideal investigators examine ideal patients. However, the study also shows that TTE yields suboptimal diagnostic accuracy under routine conditions. TTE in non-tertiary care settings, concomitant aortic aneurysm, and presence of severe aortic valve calcification predict an inaccurate diagnosis of BAV.

Background: Valvular heart diseases are frequent and increasing in prevalence. Minimally invasive heart valve surgery embedded in an interdisciplinary enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program may have potential benefits with regard to reduced length of stay and improved patient reported outcomes. However, no prospective randomized data exist regarding the superiority of ERAS program for the patients’ outcome. Methods: We aim to randomize (1:1) a total of 186 eligible patients with minimally invasive heart valve surgery to an ERAS program vs. standard treatment at two centers including the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, and the University Hospital Augsburg, Germany. The intervention is composed out of pre-, peri-, and postoperative components. The preoperative protocol aims at better preparation for the operation with regard to physical activity, nutrition, and psychological preparedness. Intraoperative anesthesiologic and surgical management are trimmed to enable an early extubation. Patients will be transferred to a specialized postoperative anesthesia care unit, where first mobilization occurs 3 h after surgery. Transfer to low care ward will be at the next day and discharge at the fifth day. Participants in the control group will receive treatment as usual. Primary endpoints include functional discharge at discharge and duration of in-hospital care during the first 12 months after index surgery. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, health literacy, and level of physical activity. Discussion: This is the first randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of an ERAS process after minimally invasive heart valve surgery. Interprofessional approach is the key factor of the ERAS process and includes in particular surgical, anesthesiological, physiotherapeutic, advanced nursing, and psychosocial components. A clinical implication guideline will be developed facilitating the adoption of ERAS model in other heart teams. Trial registration: The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04977362 assigned July 27, 2021).

Background: An enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multimodal and multi-professional strategy aiming to accelerate postoperative convalescence. Pre-, intra- and postoperative measures might furthermore reduce postoperative complications and hospital length of stay (LOS) in a cost-effective way. We hypothesized that our unique ERAS protocol leads to shorter stays on the intensive care unit (ICU) and a quicker discharge without compromising patient safety.Methods: This retrospective single center cohort study compares data of n = 101 patients undergoing minimally invasive heart valve surgery receiving a comprehensive ERAS protocol and n = 111 patients receiving routine care. Hierarchically ordered primary endpoints are postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications and ICU LOS.Results: Patients risk profiles and disease characteristics were comparably similar. Age was relevantly different between the groups (56 (17) vs. 57.5 (13) years, p = 0.015) and therefore adjusted. Postoperative LOS was significantly lower in ERAS group (6 (2) days vs. 7 (1) days, p<0.01). No significant differences, neither in intra- or postoperative complications, nor in the number of readmissions (15.8% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.196) were shown. In hospital LOS (7 (3) days vs. 8 (4) days, p<0.01) and ICU LOS (18.5 (6) hours vs. 26.5 (29) hours, p<0.01) a considerable difference was shown.Conclusion: The ERAS protocol for minimally invasive heart valve surgery is safe and feasible in an elective setting and leads to a quicker hospital discharge without compromising patient safety. However, further investigation in a randomized setting is needed.

Aortic valve (AV) repair is an evolving surgical strategy in the treatment of young patients with aortic regurgitation (AR) and/or aortic root aneurysm. We aimed to determine the clinical outcome following AV repair/AV-sparing root surgery using real-world data from the German Aortic Valve Registry. A total of 2327 patients with AR (mean age 55.2 ± 15.0 years, 76% men), who underwent AV repair/AV-sparing root surgery between 2011 and 2015 (i.e. 5% of 42 868 AV surgery patients enrolled in the German Aortic Valve Registry during the same period) were included. Study cohort was subdivided according to the technique of AV repair: isolated AV repair without root surgery (group I) (n = 914), AV-sparing root surgery (i.e. reimplantation or remodelling) without cusp repair (group II) (n = 1077) and AV-sparing root surgery (i.e. reimplantation or remodelling) with simultaneous cusp repair (group III) (n = 336). Primary end point was 1-year survival after AV repair/AV-sparing root surgery. Secondary end points were freedom from cardiac adverse events and freedom from AV reinterventions at 1-year follow-up. Thirty-day mortality was 19 (0.8%) in the whole study cohort without significant differences in the 3 subgroups [4 (0.4%) patients in group I vs 14 (1.3%) patients in group II vs 1 (0.3%) patient in group III (P = 0.054)]. Postoperatively, 1445 (74%) patients had no residual AR, 474 (24%) patients had mild AR and 40 (2%) patients had moderate/severe AR at the time of hospital discharge. One-year survival (95% confidence interval) was 97.7% (97.1–98.3) in the whole study cohort and without significant difference among the 3 subgroups. One-year cardiac adverse event-free survival (95% confidence interval) was 85.7% (84.2–87.1) and was similar in all 3 study groups in propensity score-weighted analysis. A total of 38 (1.6%) patients required AV reintervention during a 1-year follow-up, without significant difference among subgroups (P = 0.11). AV repair/AV-sparing root surgery is performed in 5% of patients requiring AV surgery in Germany. Our data demonstrate very satisfactory periprocedural and 1-year survival and cardiac event-free survival after AV repair surgery. Implementation of specific surgical techniques during the index procedure seems to result in comparable outcomes.

The aim of our study was to evaluate two different virtual non-contrast (VNC) algorithms applied to photon counting detector (PCD)-CT data in terms of noise, effectiveness of contrast media subtraction and aortic valve calcium (AVC) scoring compared to reference true non-contrast (TNC)-based results. Consecutive patients underwent TAVR planning examination comprising a TNC scan, followed by a CTA of the heart. VNC series were reconstructed using a conventional (VNC_conv) and a calcium-preserving (VNC_pc) algorithm. Noise was analyzed by means of the standard deviation of CT-values within the left ventricle. To assess the effectiveness of contrast media removal, heart volumes were segmented and the proportion of their histograms > 130HU was taken. AVC was measured by Agatston and volume score. 41 patients were included. Comparable noise levels to TNC were achieved with all VNC reconstructions. Contrast media was effectively virtually removed (proportions > 130HU from 81% to < 1%). Median calcium scores derived from VNC_conv underestimated TNC-based scores (up to 74%). Results with smallest absolute difference to TNC were obtained with VNC_pc reconstructions (0.4 mm, Br36, QIR 4), but with persistent significant underestimation (median 29%). Both VNC algorithms showed near-perfect (r²>0.9) correlation with TNC. Thin-slice VNC reconstructions provide equivalent noise levels to standard thick-slice TNC series and effective virtual removal of iodinated contrast. AVC scoring was feasible on both VNC series, showing near-perfect correlation, but with significant underestimation. VNC_pc with 0.4 mm slices and Br36 kernel at QIR 4 gave the most comparable results and, with further advances, could be a promising replacement for additional TNC.