Isolated Redo Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Valve Replacement

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for older patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

Failure of Surgical Aortic Valve Prostheses: An Analysis of Heart Team Decisions and Postoperative Outcomes

Objectives: To analyze Heart Team decisions and outcomes following failure of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) prostheses. Methods: Patients undergoing re-operations following index SAVR (Redo-SAVR) and those undergoing valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) following SAVR were included in this study. Patients who underwent index SAVR and/or Redo-SAVR for endocarditis were excluded. Data are presented as medians and 25th-75th percentiles, or absolute numbers and percentages. Outcomes were analyzed in accordance to the VARC-3 criteria. Results: Between 01/2015 and 03/2021, 53 patients underwent Redo-SAVR, 103 patients ViV-TAVR. Mean EuroSCORE II was 5.7% (3.5-8.5) in the Redo-SAVR group and 9.2% (5.4-13.6) in the ViV group. In the Redo-SAVR group, 12 patients received aortic root enlargement (22.6%). Length of hospital and ICU stay was longer in the Redo-SAVR group (p < 0.001; p < 0.001), PGmax and PGmean were lower in the Redo-SAVR group as compared to the ViV-TAVR group (18 mmHg (10-30) vs. 26 mmHg (19-38), p < 0.001) (9 mmHg (6-15) vs. 15 mmHg (9-21), p < 0.001). A higher rate of paravalvular leakage was seen in the ViV-TAVR group (p = 0.013). VARC-3 Early Safety were comparable between the two populations (p = 0.343). Survival at 1 year and 5 years was 82% and 36% in the ViV-TAVR cohort and 84% and 77% in the Redo-SAVR cohort. The variables were patient age (OR 1.061; [95% CI 1.020-1.104], p = 0.004), coronary heart disease (OR 2.648; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021), and chronic renal insufficiency (OR 2.711; [95% CI 1.160-6.048], p = 0.021) showed a significant correlation to ViV-TAVR. Conclusions: Heart Team decisions are crucial in the treatment of patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses and lead to a low mortality in both treatment paths thanks to patient-specific therapy planning. ViV-TAVR offers a treatment for elderly or intermediate-risk profile patients with comparable short-term mortality. However, this therapy is associated with increased pressure gradients and a high prevalence of paravalvular leakage. Redo-SAVR enables the surgical treatment of concomitant cardiac pathologies and allows anticipation for later VIV-TAVR by implanting the largest possible valve prostheses.

Long-Term Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data

Valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) in patients with failed bioprostheses arose as an alternative to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo-SAVR, we performed a study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of nonrandomized studies published by August 2023. A total of 16 studies met our eligibility criteria, with a total of 4,373 patients (2,204 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 2,169 patients underwent redo-SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 0.73, p <0.001), with an HR reversal after this time point favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.33, p <0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (which represented 64.6% of the overall population), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 6 months (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73, p <0.001], with a reversal after 6 months favoring redo-SAVR (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.93, p <0.001). The meta-regression analyses revealed a modulating effect of the following covariates: age, coronary artery disease, history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and implanted valves <25 mm. In conclusion, ViV-TAVI is associated with better survival immediately after the procedure than redo-SAVR; however, this primary advantage reverses over time, and redo-SAVR seems to offer better survival at a later stage. Because these results are pooled data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution, and randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Long-term prognosis in patients undergoing redo-isolated aortic valve replacement

Aim: To evaluate clinical outcomes after redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutured valves, versus valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR), versus sutureless valves. Methods: We identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing redo AVR with either ViV-TAVR, redo-sutured and redo-sutureless valves between August 2010 to March 2020. Heart-team made the decision whether patient should undergo redo-sutureless versus ViV-TAVR, versus redo-sutured AVR. Results: Preoperatively, redo-sutured (n = 57), ViV-TAVR (n = 31) and redo-sutureless (n = 25) patients were compared. Postoperatively, after propensity-adjustment analysis, the redo surgical aortic valve replacement group had a higher incidence of new postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF; p = 0.04) compared with redo-sutureless group. Follow-up outcomes analysis did not show differences among groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing redo-sutureless AVR experienced a higher incidence of POAF compared with patients undergoing redo-sutured.

Trends in surgical aortic valve replacement in pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement eras at a structural heart center

Background

The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has directly impacted the lifelong management of patients with aortic valve disease. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved TAVR for all surgical risk: prohibitive (2011), high (2012), intermediate (2016), and low (2019). Since then, TAVR volumes are increasing and surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) are decreasing. This study sought to evaluate trends in isolated SAVR in the pre- and post-TAVR eras.

Methods

From January 2000 to June 2020, 3,861 isolated SAVRs were performed at a single academic quaternary care institution which participated in the early trials of TAVR beginning in 2007. A formal structural heart center was established in 2012 when TAVR became commercially available. Patients were divided into the pre-TAVR era (2000-2011, n = 2,426) and post-TAVR era (2012-2020, n = 1,435). Data from the institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database was analyzed.

Results

The median age was 66 years, similar between groups. The post-TAVR group had a statistically higher rate of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, heart failure, more reoperative SAVR, and lower STS Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) (2.0% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.0001). There were more urgent/emergent/salvage SAVRs (38% vs. 24%) and fewer elective SAVRs (63% vs. 76%), (p < 0.0001) in the post-TAVR group. More bioprosthetic valves were implanted in the post-TAVR group (85% vs. 74%, p < 0.0001). Larger aortic valves were implanted (25 vs. 23 mm, p < 0.0001) and more annular enlargements were performed (5.9% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.0001) in the post-TAVR era. Postoperatively, the post-TAVR group had less blood product transfusion (49% vs. 58%, p < 0.0001), renal failure (1.4% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.0001), pneumonia (2.3% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.01), shorter lengths of stay, and lower in-hospital mortality (1.5% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.0007).

Conclusion

The approval of TAVR changed the landscape of aortic valve disease management. At a quaternary academic cardiac surgery center with a well-established structural heart program, patients undergoing isolated SAVR in the post-TAVR era had lower STS PROM, more implantation of bioprosthetic valves, utilization of larger valves, annular enlargement, and lower in-hospital mortality. Isolated SAVR continues to be performed in the TAVR era with excellent outcomes. SAVR remains an essential tool in the lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

Redo aortic valve replacement versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: a UK propensity-matched analysis

This study sought to compare the morbidity and mortality of redo aortic valve replacement (redo-AVR) versus valve-in-valve trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (valve-in-valve TAVI) for patients with a failing bioprosthetic valve. A multicenter UK retrospective study of redo-AVR or valve-in-valve TAVI for patients referred for redo aortic valve intervention due to a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching was performed for confounding factors. From July 2005 to April 2021, 911 patients underwent redo-AVR and 411 patients underwent valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. The mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR versus 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including intra-aortic balloon pump support (p=0.02), early re-operation (p<0.001), arrhythmias (p<0.001), respiratory and neurological complications (p=0.02 and p=0.03) and multi-organ failure (p=0.01). The valve-in-valve TAVI group had a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay (p<0.001 for both). However, moderate aortic regurgitation at discharge and higher post-procedural gradients were more common after valve-in-valve TAVI (p<0.001 for both). Survival probabilities in patients who were successfully discharged from the hospital were similar after valve-in-valve TAVI and redo-AVR over the 6-year follow-up (log-rank p=0.26). In elderly patients with a degenerated aortic bioprosthesis, valve-in-valve TAVI provides better early outcomes as opposed to redo-AVR, although there was no difference in mid-term survival in patients successfully discharged from the hospital.

Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Sutureless or rapid deployment valves in the setting of aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an emerging surgical technique using the transcatheter valve technology, which may lead to reduction in cross-clamp time and potentially better hemodynamics compared to a stented bioprosthetic valve. The absence of subannular pledgets results to excellent hemodynamic performance with reduced turbulent flow and larger effective orifice area. However, complications from both surgical and transcatheter AVR may still occur and impact survival. The incidence of paravalvular leakage and permanent pacemaker implantation are not low. Although technical modifications can improve these outcomes, there is a learning curve effect. Therefore, technical and anatomical considerations as well as better patient selection are paramount for better outcomes. In this review, we discuss the use of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in setting of (1) complex procedures, (2) minimally invasive AVR, and (3) small aortic annulus. The advantage of sutureless or rapid deployment valves in terms of mortality remains to be clarified; therefore, it is necessary to accumulate long-term outcomes in an appropriate patient cohort.

Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis

Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49−3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78−1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40−0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29−3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18−0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.

Late outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus re-replacement: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

AIMS

To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo SAVR in patients with failed bioprostheses.

METHODS

Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of non-randomized studies published by September 30, 2021.

RESULTS

Ten studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 3345 patients (1676 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 1669 patients underwent redo SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 44 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.93, P = 0.017], with an HR reversal after 197 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.22-1.93; P < 0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (1143 pairs), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 55 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.89, P < 0.001], with a reversal HR after 212 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.22-2.03; P < 0.001). The Cox regression model showed a statistically significant association of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) with all-cause mortality during follow-up for ViV-TAVI (HR 1.03 per percentage increase in the study- and treatment arm-level proportion of PPM, 95% 1.02-1.05, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ViV-TAVI is associated with a strong protective effect immediately after the procedure in comparison with redo SAVR, however, this initial advantage reverses over time and redo SAVR seems to be a protective factor for all-cause mortality after 6 months. Considering that these results are the fruit of pooling data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution and trials are warranted.

Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Failed Surgical Aortic Bioprostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background In the absence of randomized controlled trials, reports from nonrandomized studies comparing valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rAVR) have shown inconsistent results. Methods and Results PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched through December 2021. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Random effects models were applied. The primary outcomes of interest were short-term and midterm mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, and permanent pacemaker implantation, as well as prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation, mean transvalvular gradient, and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Of 8881 patients included in 15 studies, 4458 (50.2%) underwent ViV and 4423 (49.8%) rAVR. Short-term mortality was 2.8% in patients undergoing ViV compared with 5.0% in patients undergoing rAVR (risk ratio [RR] 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91], P=0.02). Midterm mortality did not differ in patients undergoing ViV compared with patients undergoing rAVR (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.72-2.25]). The rate of acute kidney failure was lower following ViV, (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88], P=0.02), whereas prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (RR, 4.18 [95% CI, 1.88-9.3], P=0.003) as well as severe patient-prothesis mismatch (RR, 3.12 [95% CI, 2.35-4.1], P<0.001) occurred more frequently. The mean transvalvular gradient was higher following ViV (standard mean difference, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.15-0.72], P=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to stroke (P=0.26), myocardial infarction (P=0.93), or pacemaker implantation (P=0.21). Conclusions Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate better short-term mortality after ViV compared with rAVR. Midterm mortality was similar between groups. Given the likely selection bias in these individual reports, an adequately powered multicenter randomized clinical trial with sufficiently long follow-up in patients with low-to-intermediate surgical risk is warranted. Registration URL: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42021228752.

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%).

CONCLUSION

Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.

Management of Failed Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Mitigating Complications and Optimizing Outcomes

The use of bioprosthetic prostheses during surgical aortic valve replacements has increased dramatically over the last two decades, accounting for over 85% of surgical implantations. Given limited long-term durability, there has been an increase in aortic valve reoperations and reinterventions. With the advent of new technologies, multiple treatment strategies are available to treat bioprosthetic valve failure, including valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, ViV TAVR has an increased risk of higher gradients and patient prosthesis mismatch (PPM) secondary to placing the new valve within the rigid frame of the prior valve, especially in patients with a small surgical bioprosthesis in situ. Bioprosthetic valve fracture allows for placement of a larger transcatheter valve, as well as a fully expanded transcatheter valve, decreasing postoperative gradients and the risk of PPM.

Re-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement in octogenarian patients in age of evolving transcatheter therapies

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze perioperative results and long-term survival of re-sternotomy for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in octogenarians in age of transcatheter therapies.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center study (April 2000 to December 2019). Perioperative data were compared for re-sternotomy with isolated SAVR (Isolated redoSAVR) and re-sternotomy with SAVR and concomitant cardiac procedure (Associated redoSAVR). Regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of in-patient mortality. Hazard ratios and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared for groups.

RESULTS

There were 163 patients (Isolated redoSAVR; 69, Associated redoSAVR; 94). Emergency/salvage cases were excluded. The median age was 83 (81-85) years and the median logEuroSCORE was 19.2 (13.0-26.7)%. The follow-up was 4.2 ± 3.5 years. Inpatient mortality was 4.9% (1.4% vs. 7.4% for Isolated redoSAVR and Associated redoSAVR respectively, p = .08). TIA/stroke rate was 8% (9% vs. 7% for Isolated redoSAVR and Associated redoSAVR, respectively, p = .78). COPD was a predictor of inpatient mortality (odds ratio: 8.86; 95% confidence interval: 1.19-66.11, p = .03). Survival was 88.7%, 86.4%, 70.1%, 49.5%, and 26.3% at 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 years. There was no survival difference between Isolated redoSAVR and Associated redoSAVR (log rank p = .36, Wilcoxon p = .84). Significant adverse predictors of long-term survival were COPD, postoperative TIA/stroke, and length of stay. Survival was lower than age and gender-matched first-time SAVR and general population of the United Kingdom.

CONCLUSION

RedoSAVR in octogenarians is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Shared decision-making should consider emerging transcatheter therapies as a valuable option in selected patients.

Mechanical vs. bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 70 years of age - a hazard ratio meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The choice between mechanical valves (MV) and bioprosthetic valves (BV) in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery is complex, requiring a balance between the inferior durability of BV and the indicated long-term anticoagulation therapy with MV. This is especially challenging in middle age group (<70 years of age) that has seen an increased use of BV over recent years.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies using propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse-probability-weighing (IPW) was conducted to examine the clinical outcomes of patients <70 years of age undergoing aortic valve replacement. Primary outcome was overall long-term mortality. Secondary outcomes included bleeding events, re-operation, systemic thromboembolism, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (1 RCT, 12 PSM, and 2 IPW studies, aggregated sample size 16,876 patients) were included. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. Mortality was higher with BV vs. MV (HR 1.22 [1.00-1.49]), as was re-operation (HR 3.05 [2.22-4.19]). Bleeding risk was lower with BV (HR 0.58 [0.48-0.69]), and the risk of stroke was similar in both valve types (HR 0.96 [0.83-1.11]) CONCLUSIONS: In this broadest meta-analysis comparing BV and MV, results suggest a survival benefit for MV in patients < 70 years of age. This should lead to reassessment of current patterns used in the choice of valves for patients <70 among the cardiothoracic surgery community.

Cardiac Surgery 2020 Reviewed

In 2020, nearly 30,000 published references appeared in the PubMed for the search term "cardiac surgery." While SARS-CoV-2 affected the number of surgical procedures, it did not affect outcomes reporting. Using the PRISMA approach, we selected relevant publications and prepared a results-oriented summary. We reviewed primarily the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with interventional alternatives. The coronary field started with a discussion on trial data value and their interpretation. Registry comparisons of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention confirmed outcomes for severe coronary artery disease and advanced comorbidities with CABG. Multiple arterial grafting was best. In aortic valve surgery, meta-analyses of randomized trials report that transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a short-term advantage but long-term survival may be better with classic aortic valve replacement (AVR). Minimally invasive AVR and decellularized homografts emerged as hopeful techniques. In mitral and tricuspid valve surgery, excellent perioperative and long-term outcomes were presented for structural mitral regurgitation. For both, coronary and valve surgery, outcomes are strongly dependent on surgeon expertise. Kidney disease increases perioperative risk, but does not limit the surgical treatment effect. Finally, a cursory look is thrown on aortic, transplant, and assist-device surgery with a glimpse into the current stand of xenotransplantation. As in recent years, this article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. We aimed to provide up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.