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.

Objective: To define the benefit of sutureless and rapid deployment valves in current minimally invasive approaches in isolated aortic valve replacement. Methods: A panel of 28 international experts with expertise in both minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and rapid deployment valves was constituted. After thorough literature review, the experts rated evidence-based recommendations in a modified Delphi approach. Results: No guideline could be retrieved. Thirty-three clinical trials and 9 systematic reviews could be identified for detailed text analysis to obtain a total of 24 recommendations. After rating by the experts 12, final recommendations were identified: preoperative computed to-mographic scan as well as intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography are highly recommended. Suitable annular sizes are 19 to 27 mm. There is a contraindication for bicuspid valves only for type 0 and for annular abscess or destruction due to infective endocarditis. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves reduces extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time and leads to less early complications as prolonged ventilation, blood transfusion, atrial fibrillation, pleural effusions, paravalvular leakages and aortic regurgitation, and renal replacement therapy, respectively. These clinical outcomes result in reduced intensive care unit and hospital stay and reduced costs. The use of sutureless and rapid deployment valves will lead to a higher adoption rate of minimally invasive approaches in aortic valve replacement. Respect should be taken to a necessary short learning curve for both sutureless and minimally invasive programs. Conclusions: Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement together with minimally invasive approaches offers an attractive option in aortic valve placement for patients requiring biological valve replacement.

In the last two decades, sutureless (Perceval, LivaNova PLC, London, UK) and rapid deployment valves (RD) (Intuity, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) were introduced to the market as an innovative alternative to traditional valves for patients requiring an aortic valve replacement (AVR). These devices have been studied extensively and in use across the last fifteen years. They have proven to not only demonstrate comparable results with conventional sutured biological valves—particularly helpful in minimally invasive cardiac surgery—but also provide an almost curative treatment to patients with intermediate-to-high surgical risk, filling the gap between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and traditional AVR. However, both sutureless and RD valves require special steps for implantation, resulting in a learning curve. Specific training for all surgical team members is mandatory, as recommended by the manufacturers. The aim of this review article is therefore to provide cardiac surgeons with a thorough guide on the implantation technique for each of these two prosthetic devices, from A to Z. In this first article, we will start by focusing on Perceval.

Since their introduction, it has been demonstrated that minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) approaches are safe and effective for the treatment of aortic valve diseases. To date, the main advantage of these approaches is represented by the reduced surgical trauma, with a subsequent reduced complication rate and faster recovery. This makes such approaches an appealing choice also for frail patients [obese, aged, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)]. The standardization of the minimally invasive techniques, together with the implementation of preoperative workup and anesthesiological intra- and post-operative care, led to an amelioration of surgical results and reduction of surgical times. Moreover, the improvement of surgical technology and the introduction of new devices such as sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves, has helped the achievement of comparable results to traditional surgery. However, transcatheter technologies are nowadays more and more important in the treatment of aortic valve disease, also in low risk patients. For this reason surgeons should put new efforts for further reducing the surgical trauma in the future, even taking inspiration from other disciplines. In this review, we aim to present a review of literature evidences regarding minimally invasive treatment of aortic diseases, also reflecting our personal experience with MIAVR techniques. This review could represent a tool for a well-structured patient assessment and preoperative planning, in order to safely carrying out an MIAVR procedure with satisfactory outcomes.

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.