To report early and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) through right mini-thoracotomy (RT) over a 10-year period. From September 2003 to December 2013, a total of 1604 consecutive patients underwent MIMVS through RT. The mean age was 63 ± 13 years, 770 (48 %) patients were female and 218 (13.6 %) had previous cardiac operations. The most predominant pathology was degenerative disease (70 %), followed by functional mitral valve regurgitation (12 %), rheumatic disease (9.4 %), endocarditis (5 %) and prosthetic dysfunction (3.2 %). Mitral valve repair was performed in 1137 (71 %) patients and 476 (29 %) had mitral valve replacement. Direct aortic cannulation was achieved in 1325 (83 %) patients. Among patients with degenerative disease candidate for repair (n = 958), rate of mitral valve repair was 95 %. Repair techniques included annuloplasty (95 %), leafleat resection (63 %), neochordae implantation (16 %) and sliding plasty (11 %). Concomitant procedures included tricuspid valve repair (14.6 %), atrial fibrillation ablation (9.5 %) and atrial septal defect closure (3.2 %). Overall in-hospital mortality was 1.1 %. Thirty-four patients (2.1 %) had conversion to sternotomy. Incidence of stroke was 2 %. Overall survival at 10 years was 88 ± 2 %. Freedom from reoperation at 10 years was 94 ± 2 % for repair and 80 ± 6 % for replacement. Freedom from recurrent mitral regurgitation >3+ at 10 years was 90 ± 3 %. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is a safe and reproducible approach associated with low mortality and morbidity, high rate of mitral valve repair and excellent late results.

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is marked by a heightened risk of embolic events (EEs), uncontrolled infection, or heart failure (HF). Methods: Patients with IE and surgical indication were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2018. The primary endpoint consisted of a composite of major adverse events (MAEs) including all-cause death, hospitalizations, and IE relapses. The secondary endpoint was all-cause death. Results: A total of 102 patients (66 ± 14 years) were enrolled: 50% with IE on prosthesis, 33% with IE-associated heart failure (IE-aHF), and 38.2% with EEs. IE-aHF and EEs were independently associated with MAEs (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1–3.4, p = 0.03 and HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2–3.6, p = 0.01, respectively) and Kaplan–Meier survival curves confirmed a strong difference in MAE-free survival of patients with EEs and IE-aHF (p < 0.01 for both). IE-aHF (HR 4.3, 95% CI 1.4–13, p < 0.01), CRP at admission (HR 5.6, 95% CI 1.4–22.2, p = 0.01), LVEF (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.9–1, p < 0.05), abscess (HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.2–10.6, p < 0.05), and prosthetic detachment (HR 4.6, 95% CI 1.5–14.1, p < 0.01) were independently associated with the all-cause death endpoint. Conclusions: IE-aHF and EEs were independently associated with MAEs. IE-aHF was also independently associated with the secondary endpoint.

Background: Sutureless aortic bioprostheses are increasingly being used to provide shorter cross-clamp time and facilitate minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. As the use of sutureless valves has increased over the past decade, we begin to encounter their degeneration. We describe clinical outcomes and technical aspects in patients with degenerated sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) aortic bioprosthesis treated with valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV-TAVR). Methods: Between March 2011 and March 2023, 1310 patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Severe bioprosthesis degeneration treated with VIV-TAVR occurred in 32 patients with a mean of 6.4 ± 1.9 years (range: 2–10 years) after first implantation. Mean EuroSCORE II was 9.5 ± 6.4% (range: 1.9–35.1%). Results: Thirty of thirty-two (94%) VIV-TAVR were performed via transfemoral and two (6%) via transapical approach. Vascular complications occurred in two patients (6%), and mean hospital stay was 4.6 ± 2.4 days. At mean follow-up of 16.7 ± 15.2 months (range: 1–50 months), survival was 100%, and mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 18.7 ± 5.3 mmHg. Conclusion: VIV-TAVR is a useful option for degenerated Perceval and appears safe and effective. This procedure is associated with good clinical results and excellent hemodynamic performance in our largest single-center experience.

Background: EuroSCORE II (ES2) is a reliable tool for preoperative cardiac surgery mortality risk prediction; however, a patient’s age, a surgical procedure’s weight and the new devices available may cause its accuracy to drift. We sought to investigate ES2 performance related to the surgical risk and late mortality estimation in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless valves. Methods: Between 2012 and 2021, a total of 1126 patients with isolated aortic stenosis who underwent surgical AVR by means of sutureless valves were retrospectively collected from six European centers. Patients were stratified into three groups according to the EuroSCORE II risk classes (ES2 < 4%, ES2 4–8% and ES2 > 8%). The accuracy of ES2 in estimating mortality risk was assessed using the standardized mortality ratio (O/E ratio), ROC curves (AUC) and Hosmer–Lemeshow (HL) test for goodness-of-fit. Results: The overall observed mortality was 3.0% (predicted mortality ES2: 5.39%) with an observed/expected (O/E) ratio of 0.64 (confidential interval (CI): 0.49–0.89). In our population, ES2 showed a moderate discriminating power (AUC 0.65, 95%CI 0.56–0.72, p < 0.001; HL p = 0.798). Good accuracy was found in patients with ES2 < 4% (O/E ratio 0.54, 95%CI 0.23–1.20, AUC 0.75, p < 0.001, HL p = 0.999) and for patients with an age < 75 years (O/E ratio 0.98, 95%CI 0.45–1.96, AUC 0.76, p = 0.004, HL p = 0.762). Moderate discrimination was observed for ES2 in the estimation of long-term risk of mortality (AUC 0.64, 95%CI: 0.60–0.68, p < 0.001). Conclusions: EuroSCORE II showed good accuracy in patients with an age < 75 years and patients with ES2 < 4%, while overestimating risk in the other subgroups. A recalibration of the model should be taken into account based on the complexity of actual patients and impact of new technologies.

The management of patients with aortic disease that involves the ascending aorta, the aortic arch, and the descending aorta represent a surgical challenge. Open surgical repair remains the gold standard for aortic arch pathologies. However, this operation requires a cardiopulmonary bypass and a period of profound hypothermia and circulatory arrest, which carries a substantial rate of mortality and morbidity. For these reasons, hybrid arch repair that involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative for those patients deemed unfit for open surgical procedures. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness and can be performed as a single-stage procedure or as a two-stage procedure. The choice of the technique is multifactorial, depending on the characteristics of the diseased arch with regard to position of the stent graft proximal landing zone, patient fitness and comorbid status, as well as surgical expertise and hospital facilities. Among the evolving hybrid procedures is the so-called “frozen” or stented elephant trunk technique. Adapted from the classical elephant trunk technique, this approach facilitates the repair of a concomitant aortic arch and proximal descending aortic aneurysms in a single stage under circulatory arrest. This technique is increasingly being used to treat extensive thoracic aortic disease and has shown promising results.