Minimally invasive surgical techniques with optimal outcomes are of paramount importance. Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valves are increasingly implanted via minimally invasive approaches. We aimed to analyse the procedural outcomes of a full sternotomy (FS) compared with those of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) and further assess MICS, namely ministernotomy (MS) and anterior right thoracotomy (ART). We selected all isolated aortic valve replacements in the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement International Registry (SURD-IR, n = 2257) and performed propensity score matching to compare aortic valve replacement through FS or MICS (n = 508/group) as well as through MS and ART accesses (n = 569/group). Postoperative mortality was 1.6% in FS and MICS patients who had a mean logistic EuroSCORE of 11%. Cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were shorter in the FS group than in the MICS group (mean difference 3.2 and 9.2 min; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing FS had a higher rate of acute kidney injury (5.6% vs 2.8%; P = 0.012). Direct comparison of MS and ART revealed longer mean cross-clamp and CPB times (12 and 16.7 min) in the ART group (P < 0.001). The postoperative outcome revealed a higher stroke rate (3.2% vs 1.2%; P = 0.043) as well as a longer postoperative intensive care unit [2 (1–3) vs 1 (1–3) days; P = 0.009] and hospital stay [11 (8–16) vs 8 (7–12) days; P < 0.001] in the MS group than in the ART group. According to this non-randomized international registry, FS resulted in a higher rate of acute kidney injury. The ART access showed a lower stroke rate than MS and a shorter hospital stay than all other accesses. All these findings may be related to underlying patient risk factors.

We sought to assess what proportion of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are excluded from cardiac surgery are eligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Between July 2007 and December 2008, 98 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis judged inoperable were referred to our institution for percutaneous aortic balloon valvuloplasty (PABV). They entered a screening for TAVI with the CoreValve Revalving System or the Edwards-Sapien valve, comprising general clinical evaluation, echocardiogram, coronary angiography, angiography and angio-CT scan of thoracic aorta and ilio-femoral axes. Mean patients' age was 82 +/- 7 years; the vast majority presented relevant comorbidities. Mortality risk predicted by the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation was on average 25.3 +/- 14.5%. Overall, 45 (45.9%) patients met the criteria for TAVI: 29.6% for percutaneous transfemoral access, 6.1% for trans-subclavian and 10.2% for transapical approaches. Reason for exclusion was severe noncardiac comorbidity in around half of the cases. PABV allowed re-classification of several patients with very poor left ejection fraction and severe mitral regurgitation. Among the 39 patients undergoing TAVI after the screening, in-hospital mortality was 3.7% for transfemoral and 0 for trans-subclavian and transapical approaches. TAVI represents a viable therapeutic option for elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement. However, presently less than half of them actually fulfil the criteria for these procedures.

OBJECTIVES: Current evidence on sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) is limited and does not allow for the assessment of the clinical impact and the evolution of procedural and clinical outcomes of this new valve technology. The Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR) represents a unique opportunity to evaluate the current trends and outcomes of SURD-AVR interventions. METHODS: Data from 3682 patients enrolled between 2007 and 2018 were analysed. Patients were divided according to the date of surgery into 6 equal groups and by the type of intervention: isolated SURD-AVR (n = 2472) and combined SURD-AVR (n = 1086). RESULTS: Across the 11-year study period, significant changes occurred in patient characteristics including a decrease in age and in estimated surgical risk. Less invasive approaches for isolated SURD-AVR increased considerably from 49.4% to 85.5%. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 1.6% and 3.9% in isolated and combined procedures, respectively, with no change over time. The rate of perioperative stroke decreased significantly (from 4% to 0.5%), as did the rates of postoperative pacemaker implantation (from 12.8% to 5.9%) and aortic regurgitation (from 17.8% to 2.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current trends and results of SURD-AVR interventions. The most notable changes over time were the increasing implantation of SURD valves in a younger population, with more frequent utilization of less invasive techniques. SURD-AVR demonstrated remarkable improvements in clinical outcomes with a significant reduction in the rates of stroke, pacemaker implantation and postoperative aortic regurgitation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare procedural and in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing sutureless (Perceval, Livanova PLC, London, UK) and rapid deployment (Intuity Elite, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) aortic valve replacement (group 1) versus sutured aortic valve replacement (group 2). METHODS: Patients receiving isolated aortic valve replacement between 2014 and 2020 were analysed using data from the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry. Patients in group 1 and group 2 were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: A total of 7708 patients were included in the study. After matching, 2 groups of 2643 each were created. Patients in group 1 were more likely to undergo minimally invasive approaches and were associated with shorter operative times when compared with group 2. Overall in-hospital mortality was similar between groups. While an increased risk of stroke was observed in group 1 in the first study period (2014–2016; relative risk 3.76, P < 0.001), no difference was found in more recent year period (relative risk 1.66, P = 0.08; P for heterogeneity 0.003). Group 1 was associated with reduced rates of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome, atrial fibrillation and mild aortic regurgitation. New pacemaker implant was three-fold higher in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed significant differences in procedural and clinical outcomes between the study groups. These results suggest that sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement should be considered as part of a comprehensive valve programme. The knowledge of the respective post-aortic valve replacement benefits for different valve technologies may result in patient-tailored valve selection with improved clinical outcomes.

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious disease, and in many cases, surgery is necessary. Whether the type of prosthesis implanted for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for IE impacts patient survival is a matter of debate. The aim of the present study is to quantify differences in long-term survival and recurrence of endocarditis AVR for IE according to prosthesis type among patients aged 40 to 65 years. Methods: This was an analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY. Trends in proportion to the use of mechanical prostheses versus biological ones over time were tested by applying the sieve bootstrapped t-test. Confounders were adjusted using the optimal full-matching propensity score. The difference in overall survival was compared using the Cox model, whereas the differences in recurrence of endocarditis were evaluated using the Gray test. Results: Overall, 4365 patients were diagnosed and operated on for IE from 2000 to 2021. Of these, 549, aged between 40 and 65 years, underwent AVR. A total of 268 (48.8%) received mechanical prostheses, and 281 (51.2%) received biological ones. A significant trend in the reduction of implantation of mechanical vs. biological prostheses was observed during the study period (p < 0.0001). Long-term survival was significantly higher among patients receiving a mechanical prosthesis than those receiving a biological prosthesis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.546, 95% CI: 0.322–0.926, p = 0.025). Mechanical prostheses were associated with significantly less recurrent endocarditis after AVR than biological prostheses (HR 0.268, 95%CI: 0.077–0.933, p = 0.039). Conclusions: The present analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY shows increased survival and reduced recurrence of endocarditis after a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis implant for IE in middle-aged patients.

Background: Despite advanced diagnosis and treatment, infective endocarditis (IE) is a potentially life-threatening condition. The impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis and outcome of the surgical treatment of IE is uncertain. The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of surgically treated IE before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed the data of 535 patients who underwent valve surgical procedures for IE between January 2010 and December 2022 in a single cardiac surgery center. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the date of their operation: before (n = 393) and after (n = 142) COVID-19 onset. In order to balance the groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) calculated from the propensity score (PS) was applied. Weighted univariate logistic regressions were reported for outcomes; weights were derived from IPTW. Interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) according to Linden’s method was used to evaluate the changes in the manifestation of IE after 11 March 2020. Results: Patients from the post-COVID-19 cohort (after 11 March 2020) had a greater number of comorbidities such as diabetes (29.6% vs. 16.3% p = 0.001), hypertension (71.1% vs. 59.5% p = 0.015), and preoperative kidney injury requiring dialysis (9.2% vs. 2.5% p = 0.002), but the median additive and logistic EuroSCORE were not statistically different. In the post-COVID-19 group, we observed a greater prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus-related endocarditis (24.5% vs. 15.4% p = 0.026), a consequent reduction in Staphylococcus non aureus-related endocarditis (12.2% vs. 20.1% p = 0.048), and a decrease in aortic valve replacements (43.0% vs. 53.9%), while the number of mitral valve replacements and repair was greater (21.1% vs. 15.0% and 6.3% vs. 4.3%, respectively). No differences were found in the two groups concerning early death, death, or relapse at 1 year after surgery. Data obtained by multivariable analysis identified preoperative renal dysfunction requiring dialysis as the only common risk factor for early mortality via stratifying by time periods in analysis. Conclusions: The incidence of surgically treated IE significantly increases after the COVID-19 pandemic with a higher incidence of mitral valve involvement with respect to the aortic valve. Although a delay in surgical timing occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, data in terms of mortality and outcomes were largely unaffected.