The aim of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate the prevalence of concurrent coronary artery disease in patients who underwent surgery due to severe valvular heart disease. The study also investigated the association of coronary artery disease with the type of valvular heart disease. A total of 241 patients (123 females [51%]), who had underwent single valvular heart surgery, were included in the study. The patients who underwent valve replacement surgery were divided into four groups: patients with severe mitral stenosis (MS), patients with severe mitral regurgitation (MR), patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR), and patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). Age, DM, HT, history of smoking, and LDL values were recorded as the risk factors for CAD. Coronary artery disease was detected in 26.4% of patients with mitral stenosis and 57.7% of patients with aortic stenosis. Of the patients with mitral insufficiency, 41.9% had CAD, and 44.4% of the patients with aortic insufficiency had CAD. The comparison of MS and AS groups revealed significantly higher prevalence of CAD in the AS group. There was no statistically significant difference between the MR and AR groups in terms of the prevalence of CAD. The comparison of MS and MR groups revealed significantly higher prevalence of CAD in the MR group. Furthermore, the comparison of these groups in terms of the extensiveness of the coronary artery disease revealed significantly higher Gensini score in the MR group.

Introduction: The minimally invasive implantation of aortic valve prosthesis via thoracotomy has numerous advantages and is comfortable, especially during the early postoperative period. Disadvantages of this method include peripheral vessel complications and groin infections. Central cannulation (direct aortic cannulation with superior vena cava cannulation) eliminates these drawbacks. In this report, we evaluated this method of treatment in patients with obesity. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 21 obese patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve implantation via thoracotomy and central cannulation with a bovine pericardial aortic prosthesis between 2017 and 2021. We compared these records with the medical records of 27 obese patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent conventional aortic valve surgery. Results: Mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were similar in both groups. Operating time was significantly longer in the minimally invasive group (P < 0.05). In the minimally invasive group, acute renal failure occurred in 2 patients. In terms of postoperative complications, deep sternal wound infection/sternal instability was much higher in the conventional group. This was not statistically significant (P=0.090). Minimally invasive operated patients had a comfortable early postoperative period, with a mean visual analog scale for pain of 1.10 & PLUSMN;0.83 (no pain-mild pain). When we assessed patient satisfaction with the postoperative period, 13 patients were extremely satisfied, 7 patients were satisfied, and 1 patient was quite satisfied. Conclusion: Minimally invasive aortic valve implantation via thoracotomy and central cannulation is a safe and effective treatment for obese patients

We aimed to investigate whether the temperature of tumescent anesthesia is important, if so, to establish an opinion about the ideal temperature. Endovenous laser ablations were performed in 72 patients; 35 patients (Group A) received tumescent anesthesia at +4℃, while other 37 patients (Group B) received tumescent anesthesia at room temperature. The groups were compared in terms of intraoperative pain, postoperative regional pain, ecchymosis, paresthesia, skin burns and necrosis. At month 1, great saphenous vein was evaluated for recanalization and patient satisfaction. The survey on intraoperative pain showed that patients receiving tumescent anesthesia at +4℃ experienced much less pain. Interestingly, statistical analysis showed that this difference was not significant (p = 0.072). No skin burns or necrosis occurred in either group, whereas ecchymosis and paresthesia were the most frequently observed side effects in both groups, but no significant difference was found between the groups. There was no significant difference between pain levels on postoperative days and no significant difference between the groups in terms of satisfaction with endovenous laser ablation procedure and postoperative satisfaction. All venous segments treated with endovenous laser ablation in both groups were occluded. At month 1 no recanalization was observed. We conclude that the temperature of tumescent anesthesia solution is not important, while the proper administration of tumescent solution in adequate amounts ensuring delivery of the fluid to all segments appears to be a more significant determinant for the success of the procedure.

Objectives: Cardioplegia solutions have a role not only in arresting the heart but also in protecting the myocardium from ischemia. While antegrade cardioplegia is given by the heart-lung machine in many centers, it is given by a hand-squeezed bag in very few centers. The pressure of cardioplegia given antegrade from the heart-lung machine is certain (60-90 mmHg). The pressure applied in the cardioplegia method, which is given antegrade with a hand-squeezed bag, is uncertain and variable. We compared the antegrade cardioplegia method applied with a hand-squeezed bag with the antegrade cardioplegia method applied with a roller pump from the heart-lung machine in terms of protecting the myocardium from ischemia. Methods: Seventy-six patients who did not have an acute myocardial infarction, had normal preoperative cardiac marker (troponin and CK-MB) values, did not undergo redo open heart surgery, had an ejection fraction of 50% and above, and underwent elective two or three-vessel isolated coronary artery bypass surgery were evaluated. While tepid (30-32°C) blood cardioplegia was administered antegrade to 33 patients (Group A) with a hand-squeezed bag, the other 34 patients (Group B) received tepid (30-32°C) antegrade blood cardioplegia from the heart-lung machine. The perioperative and postoperative data of the patients were recorded and compared. To evaluate myocardial damage, postoperative cardiac markers and echocardiography data were evaluated and compared at the fourth hour after the cross-clamp was removed in both groups. Results: When evaluated in terms of preoperative demographic data, preoperative mean EF values and intraoperative data, there was no statistical difference between both groups. When we evaluated in terms of myocardial protection, the mean TnT level was 4.31 ± 1.95 at the 4th hour in Group A and 3.91 ± 1.69 in Group B. Mean 4th hour CK-MB level was 40.84 ± 9.07 in Group A and 38.56 ± 8.07 in Group B. Mean change in EF (%) was -4.09 ± 4.41 in Group A and 3.53 ± 4.53 in Group B. In line with the current data when we evaluated in terms of myocardial protection, we found that there is no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.373; P = 0.158; P = 0.523). There was no statistical difference between both groups, in terms of postoperative arrhythmias. None of the patients died, and no patients required an intra-aortic balloon pump. Results: As a result of our study, cardioplegia administration with a certain constant pressure from the roller pump and hand-squeezed bag with uncertain pressure does not make a difference, in terms of myocardial protection. We think that the content and amount of cardioplegia and the preferred time for repeated cardioplegia applications are more important for the protection of the myocardium. Methods: 76 patients who did not have an acute myocardial infarction, had normal preoperative cardiac marker (troponin and CK-MB) values, did not undergo redo open heart surgery, had an ejection fraction of 50% and above, and underwent elective two or three-vessel isolated coronary artery bypass surgery were evaluated. While tepid(30-32 ° C) blood cardioplegia was administered antegrade to 33 patients(Group A) with a hand-squeezed bag, the other 34 patients(Group B) received tepid(30-32 °C) antegrade blood cardioplegia from the heart-lung machine. The perioperative and postoperative data of the patients were recorded and compared. To evaluate myocardial damage, postoperative cardiac markers and echocardiography data were evaluated and compared at the fourth hour after the cross-clamp was removed in both groups. Results: When evaluated in terms of preoperative demographic data, preoperative mean EF values and intraoperative data there was no statistical difference between both groups. When we evaluated in terms of myocardial protection, the mean TnT level was 4.31 ± 1.95 at the 4th hour in group A and 3.91 ± 1.69 in group B. Mean 4th hour CK-MB level was 40.84 ± 9.07 in group A and 38.56 ± 8.07 in group B. Mean change in EF (%) was -4.09 ± 4.41 in group A and 3.53 ± 4.53 in group B. In line with the current data when we evaluated in terms of myocardial protection; we found that there is no statistical difference between the two groups (p = 0.373; p = 0.158; p = 0.523). There was no statistical difference between both groups in terms of postoperative arrhythmia's. None of the patients died and none of the patients required an intra-aortic balloon pump.

Introduction: We report the results of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in three patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: Three patients were diagnosed with abdominal aortic aneurysm. All three patients were male and aged 68 years. The diameter of the aneurysm was larger than 65 mm and was considered suitable for EVAR. Thorax tomography was performed to exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection before the procedure. Results: We performed EVAR under general anesthesia. “Priority Level” was based on the guideline of the American College of Surgeons. The procedure was conducted in the angiography laboratory by taking advanced precautions. Intensive care admission was avoided. The postoperative period was uneventful, and all patients were discharged without any condition associated with COVID-19. There were no mortality, rupture, secondary intervention, major adverse event, limb occlusion, and 60-day read-mission. Conclusions: During the pandemic, EVAR can be performed for symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm with a diameter of more than 65 mm. Thorax tomography is safe to exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, tomographic angiography to monitor patients may be difficult during the pandemic.