Objective We examined cardiac surgery patients who underwent monitoring of postoperative vital parameters using medical monitoring devices which transferred data to a mobile application and a web-based software. Methods From November 2017 to November 2020, a total of 2340 patients were enrolled in the remote patient monitoring system after undergoing cardiac surgery. The medical devices recorded vital parameters, such as blood pressure, pulse rate, saturation, body temperature, blood glucose, and electrocardiography were measured via the Health Monitor DakikApp and Holter ECG DakikApp devices which reported data to web-based software and a mobile application (DakikApp Mobile Systems, Remscheid, Germany). During the follow-up period, patients were contacted daily through text and voice messages, and video conferences. Remote Medical Evaluations (RMEs) concerning patients' medical states were performed. Medication reminders, daily treatment were communicated to the patients with the DakikApp Mobile Systems Software. Results During a mean follow-up period of 78.9 ± 107.1 (10–395) days, a total of 135,786 patient contacts were recorded (782 video conferences, 2805 voice messaging, and 132,199 text correspondence). The number of RMEs handled by the Telemedicine Team was 79,560. A total of 105,335 vital parameter measurements were performed and 5024 hospital application requests (6.3% per RME) were addressed successfully and hospitalization was avoided. A total of 144 (6.1%) potentially life-threatening complications were found to have been diagnosed early using the Telemedicine System. Conclusion Remote Patient Monitoring Systems combined with professional medical devices are feasible, effective, and safe for the purpose of improving postoperative outcomes.

Background: To compare the clinical outcomes between isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a conventional stented bioprosthetic valve (St. Jude, Epic™ Valve Porcine) and a sutureless bioprosthetic valve (Perceval). Methods: This single-center retrospective study evaluated 160 patients who underwent isolated surgical minimally invasive AVR between January 2020 and December 2024. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data, as well as echocardiographic findings, were analyzed and compared. Results: Patients were divided into two groups: Perceval (n = 73) and St. Jude (n = 87). Patients in the Perceval group were older and had higher EuroSCORE 2 scores. The Perceval group showed significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times (53.45 ± 24.18 vs. 68.02 ± 21.05 min; p < 0.001; and 40 ± 20.11 vs. 53.24 ± 17.34 min; p < 0.001). The intensive care unit (ICU) stay, intubation time, and hospital discharge time were significantly shorter in the Perceval group (p < 0.05). The requirement for inotropic support was also lower (2.8% vs. 24.1%, p < 0.001). At the 30-day follow-up, the perceval group had significantly lower mean and maximum transvalvular gradients. Complication rates were low in both groups, with one case of permanent pacemaker implantation and two reinterventions in the Perceval group. Conclusion: Sutureless AVR with a Perceval valve is a safe and effective alternative to conventional stented bioprostheses, particularly in elderly patients. It offers shorter operative times and improves early postoperative recovery without compromising the clinical or hemodynamic outcomes.

This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of isolated aortic valve replacement using a sutureless bioprosthetic valve (Perceval) and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). This single-center retrospective study evaluated 143 patients who underwent isolated surgical minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and TAVI procedures between January 2020 and February 2025. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data as well as perioperative echocardiographic findings were analyzed and compared. The patients were divided into 2 groups: Sutureless (n = 73) and TAVI (n = 70). The Intensive care unit stay, intubation time, and hospital discharge time were significantly shorter in the TAVI group ( P < .05). The requirement for inotropic support was also lower (2.8% vs 24.1%, P < .001). At the 30-day follow-up, the TAVI group had significantly lower mean and maximum transvalvular gradient. The need for pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the TAVI group ( P = .001). Pacemakers were implanted in 1.4% of patients in the sutureless group and 17.1% of patients in the TAVI group. The sutureless group had a significantly longer mean discharge time (5.47 ± 2.86 days) compared to the TAVI group (3.89 ± 2.93 days; P = .001). Similarly, intubation time was significantly longer in the sutureless group (11.90 ± 5.84 hours) compared to the TAVI group (3.37 ± 19.17 hours; P = .001). TAVI is a safe and effective alternative in appropriately selected patients, offering shorter operative times and improved early postprocedural recovery without compromising clinical or hemodynamic outcomes.