Obese patients are at risk of complications after cardiac surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive approach via upper sternotomy in this setting. We retrospectively reviewed 203 obese patients who underwent isolated, elective aortic valve replacement between January 2014 and January 2023 - 106 with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) and 97 with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed obtaining two balanced groups of 91 patients each. The 30-day mortality rate was comparable between groups (1.1% MIAVR vs. 0% CAVR, P=0.99). MIAVR patients had faster extubation than CAVR patients (6 ± 2 vs. 9 ± 2 hours, P<0.01). Continuous positive airway pressure therapy was less common in the MIAVR than in the CAVR group (3.3% vs. 13.2%, P=0.03). Other postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Intensive care unit stay (1.8 ± 1.2 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4 days, P<0.01), but not hospital stay (6.7 ± 2.1 vs. 7.2 ± 1.9 days, P=0.09), was shorter for MIAVR than for CAVR patients. Follow-up survival was comparable (logrank P-value = 0.58). MIAVR via upper sternotomy has been shown to be a safe and effective option for obese patients. Respiratory outcome was promising with shorter mechanical ventilation time and reduced need for post-extubation support. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was reduced. These advantages might be important for the obese patient to whom minimally invasive surgery should not be denied.

We aimed to evaluate the results of the combined use of rapid-deployment valves, percutaneous cardioplegia delivery and left heart venting during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement surgery. We identified 2 propensity-matched cohorts of patients who underwent primary elective isolated minimally invasive aortic valve surgery at our center over a 3-years period: 30 patients in group A had a conventional valve prosthesis and 30 patients in group B received a rapid-deployment valve using percutaneous cardioplegia delivery and percutaneous left heart venting. Skin incision length, intraoperative times, postoperative hospital outcomes, and 30-day echocardiographic results were compared between the 2 groups. Patients in group B had significantly shorter operative times and shorter skin incisions compared to group A (total operative time 196.0 ± 40.6 vs. 225.1 ± 30.8 min, respectively, p < 0.003; cardiopulmonary bypass time 79.9 ± 10.6 vs. 92.9 ± 17.2 min respectively, p < 0.001; crossclamp time 52.3 ± 9.6 vs. 74.9 ± 10.2 min, respectively, p < 0.001; incision length 3.6 ± 0.5 vs. 6.0 ± 0.6 cm, respectively, p < 0.001). Postoperative hospital outcomes and echocardiographic evaluation showed no significant differences. The combined use of rapid-deployment valves, percutaneous cardioplegia, and left heart venting is safe and effective and allows a significant reduction of the skin incision together with a significant reduction of intraoperative times without affecting hospital outcomes or hemodynamic performance of the prosthetic valves.

Background: Aetiological diagnosis and targeted antibiotic therapy are essential to improve the prognosis of patients with infective endocarditis. Molecular tests on blood have been reported to be effective in identifying the causative organism and are recommended when blood cultures are negative. The role of molecular tests on the surgically excised valve is still unclear and needs further investigation.Materials and methods: In this prospective, observational, single center study, we enrolled 100 consecutive patients with native or prosthetic valve endocarditis who underwent cardiac surgery between April 2020 and June 2023. Results of preoperative blood cultures, valve culture, 16s ribosomal RNA and histopathologic analysis of surgical samples were collected in a dedicated database.Results: The mean age of the study population was 60 ± 12.5 years, with a majority of men (73%). Previous cardiac surgery was reported in 31% of patients. Blood culture, valve culture, and 16srRNA were positive in 83%, 47%, and 76% of cases, respectively. The sensitivity of both valve culture and 16srRNA decreased significantly with prolonged preoperative antibiotic therapy. Of note, 16srRNA was the only positive result in 7% of cases, allowing aetiological diagnosis. In 33% of patients, the valve culture test was negative while the molecular test was positive. In these cases, histopathological analysis showed acute inflammation in most cases. In 10%, the molecular test helped in resolving discrepancies between the results of blood and valve cultures.Conclusions: The molecular test showed significantly higher diagnostic sensitivity than valve culture and maintained this efficacy even after 28 days of preoperative antibiotic therapy. In addition to identifying the pathogen in 7% of cases with negative culture results, the molecular test demonstrated utility in other crucial situations. When valve cultures were negative, combining molecular testing and histopathological analysis they allowed the identification of patients who could benefit from prolonged antibiotic therapy. In addition, molecular testing guided the choice of antibiotic treatment when there was a discrepancy between blood culture and valve culture results. Based on these findings, molecular testing should be considered in all patients with infective endocarditis undergoing cardiac surgery. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier (NCT05791357).

Introduction: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) requires changes in cannulation strategy and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) management when compared to the conventional approach (CAVR). We aimed at evaluating if these differences could influence perfusion-related quality parameters and impair postoperative outcomes. Methods: Overall, 339 consecutive patients underwent MIAVR or CAVR between 2014 and 2020 and were analyzed retrospectively. To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed, obtaining two groups of 97 patients each. Results: MIAVR group had longer CPB time [107 (95–120) vs 95 (86–105) min, p = .003] than CAVR group. Of note, average pump flow rate index [2.4 (2.2–2.5) vs 2.7 (2.4–2.8) l/min/m², p = .004] was lower in the MIAVR group. Mean arterial pressure was 73 = 9 mmHg vs 62 = 11 mmHg for the MIAVR and CAVR group, respectively (p < .001). Cell-salvaged blood was most commonly used in the MIAVR group (25.8% vs 11.3%, p = .02). Finally, CPB temperature was 32.8°C (32.1–34.8) for MIAVR group vs 34.9°C (33.2–36.1) for the CAVR group (p = .02). Postoperative complications were similar between groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, despite differences in CPB parameters in patients undergoing CAVR and MIAVR, the incidences of adverse outcomes were similar. However, compared to CAVR, MIAVR was associated with shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay as well as less transfusion of blood products.

A 51-year-old woman with exercise angina and a history of pulmonary artery hypertension related to a previous pulmonary thromboembolism, was referred to our hospital. Computed tomography and coronary angiography showed a 95-mm aneurysm of the main pulmonary artery, which totally occluded the left main coronary artery. After a multidisciplinary evaluation, we recommended heart-lung transplantation, but the patient refused any kind of surgical procedure. Due to the chronic occlusion, stenting of the left main coronary artery was unfeasible. With no other options available, we could only start pulmonary antihypertensive therapy. At the 1-year follow-up, the patient reported relief of her angina.