Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in octogenarian, high-risk, transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates

Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Valvular Disease in the Elderly

Aortic valvular disease, including aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation, is increasingly common with age. Due to the aging population, more elderly patients are presenting with aortic valve pathology and expectations for prompt diagnosis and efficacious treatment. The current paradigm for aortic valve disease is based on surgical or interventional therapy. In this review, we discuss the approach to diagnosing aortic valvular disease and the different options for treatment based on the most recent evidence.

Contemporary Management of Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

There were gaps between guidelines and practice when surgery was the only treatment for aortic stenosis (AS).

OBJECTIVES

This study analyzed the decision to intervene in patients with severe AS in the EORP VHD (EURObservational Research Programme Valvular Heart Disease) II survey.

METHODS

Among 2,152 patients with severe AS, 1,271 patients with high-gradient AS who were symptomatic fulfilled a Class I recommendation for intervention according to the 2012 European Society of Cardiology guidelines; the primary end point was the decision for intervention.

RESULTS

A decision not to intervene was taken in 262 patients (20.6%). In multivariate analysis, the decision not to intervene was associated with older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34 per 10-year increase; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.61; P = 0.002), New York Heart Association functional classes I and II versus III (OR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.30; P = 0.005), higher age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (OR: 1.09 per 1-point increase; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.17; P = 0.03), and a lower transaortic mean gradient (OR: 0.81 per 10-mm Hg decrease; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.92; P < 0.001). During the study period, 346 patients (40.2%, median age 84 years, median EuroSCORE II [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II] 3.1%) underwent transcatheter intervention and 515 (59.8%, median age 69 years, median EuroSCORE II 1.5%) underwent surgery. A decision not to intervene versus intervention was associated with lower 6-month survival (87.4%; 95% CI: 82.0 to 91.3 vs 94.6%; 95% CI: 92.8 to 95.9; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A decision not to intervene was taken in 1 in 5 patients with severe symptomatic AS despite a Class I recommendation for intervention and the decision was particularly associated with older age and combined comorbidities. Transcatheter intervention was extensively used in octogenarians.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery in Octogenarians: Reliable Option or Fallback Solution?

OBJECTIVE

Aortic valve disease is more and more common in western countries. While percutaneous approaches should be preferred in older adults, previous reports have shown good outcomes after surgery. Moreover, advantages of minimally invasive approaches may be valuable for octogenarians. We sought to compare outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) in octogenarians.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of 75 consecutive octogenarians who underwent primary, elective, isolated aortic valve surgery through conventional approach (41 patients, group CAVR) or partial upper sternotomy (34 patients, group MIAVR).

RESULTS

Mean age was 81.9 ± 0.9 and 82.3 ± 1.1 years in CAVR and MIAVR patients, respectively (P = 0.09). MIAVR patients had lower 24-hour chest drain output (353.4 ± 207.1 vs 501.7 ± 229.9 mL, P < 0.01), shorter mechanical ventilation (9.6 ± 2.4 vs 11.3 ± 2.3 hours, P < 0.01), lower need for blood transfusions (35.3% vs 63.4%, P = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (6.8 ± 1.6 vs 8.3 ± 4.3 days, P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was zero in both groups. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89.9%, 80%, and 47%, respectively, in the CAVR group, and 93.2%, 82.4%, and 61.8% in the MIAVR group, with no statistically significant differences (log-rank test, P = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve surgery in older patients provided excellent results, as long as appropriate candidates were selected. MIAVR was associated with shorter mechanical ventilation, reduced blood transfusions, and reduced hospitalization length, without affecting perioperative complications or mid-term survival.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless bioprosthesis through right minithoracotomy with completely central cannulation-Early results in 203 patients

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) might improve clinical outcomes, particularly in high-risk and elderly patients. Sutureless/rapid deployment bioprosthesis can offer advantage of decreasing the cross-clamp time (XCT) and easing the procedure. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and perioperative outcomes of mini-AVR using sutureless bioprothesis via the right minithoracotomy approach with our modified technique of central cannulation.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 203 patients consecutively undergoing isolated AVR between March 2016 and June 2018 with the right minithoracotomy approach and our modified technique of central cannulation. Aortic valve diseases were stenosis (89.9%), regurgitation (1.6%), and mixed valve disease (8.5%). Patients with concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary endpoints were 30-day and 4-month mortality.

RESULTS

Mean age was 76 ± 6.2 years, 63 (31%) patients were 80 years or older. Cardiopulmonary bypass and XCT were 60.5 (39-153) and 35 (24-76) min, respectively. Thirty-day and 4-month mortality were 1% (two patients). We have observed minor paravalvular leak (PVL) which occurred in seven patients (3.4%), and no moderate/severe PVL was found perioperatively. One patient developed moderate/severe PVL during the 4-month follow-up. There was no structural valve degeneration. Two (1%) patients needed conversion to full sternotomy, and two (1%) patients to ministernotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-AVR via the right minithoracotomy approach with central cannulation is an effective and safe procedure and demonstrates excellent early clinical outcomes. This approach can be particularly valuable in higher risk and elderly patients.

Aortic valve replacement using stented or sutureless/rapid deployment prosthesis via either full-sternotomy or a minimally invasive approach: a network meta-analysis

Background

New technologies such as sutureless or rapid deployment prosthetic valves and access via minimally invasive incisions offer alternatives to traditional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, a comprehensive comparison of these surgical techniques along with alternative valve prosthesis has not been completed.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes for SAVR, minimally invasive AVR (MiAVR), sutureless/rapid-deployment AVR (SuAVR) via full-sternotomy, or minimally invasive SuAVR (MiSuAVR) from their inception until September 2018. Early postoperative outcomes and follow-up data were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-three studies with 8,718 patients were identified. Compared with standard SAVR, SuAVR had significantly lower incidence of postoperative AF [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14-0.79, P=0.013] and MiSuAVR greater requirement for postoperative permanent pacemaker (OR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.25-4.14, P=0.008). All sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, by a mean of 25.9 and 25.0 min, respectively. Hospital length of stay (LOS), but not intensive care LOS, was reduced for all groups (MiAVR -1.53 days, MiSuAVR -2.79 days, and SuAVR 3.37 days). A signal towards reduced early mortality, wound infections, and acute kidney injury was noted in both sutureless/rapid-deployment and minimally invasive techniques but did not achieve significance. Sutureless/rapid-deployment procedures had favourable survival and freedom from valve related reoperation, however follow-up times were short and demonstrated significant heterogeneity between intervention groups.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive and sutureless techniques demonstrate equivalent early postoperative outcomes to SAVR and may reduce ventilation time, hospital LOS and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) burden.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in high risk patient groups

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) aims to preserve the sternal integrity and improve postoperative outcomes. In low risk patients, this technique can be achieved with comparable mortality to the conventional approach and there is evidence of possible reduction in intensive care and hospital length of stay, transfusion requirement, renal dysfunction, improved respiratory function and increased patient satisfaction. In this review, we aim to asses if these benefits can be transferred to the high risk patient groups. We therefore, discuss the available evidence for the following high risk groups: elderly patients, re-operative surgery, poor lung function, pulmonary hypertension, obesity, concomitant procedures and high risk score cohorts.

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

 To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

 Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

 Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.

METHODS

 Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

 In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).

CONCLUSION

 Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.

Incidence and causes of silent and symptomatic stroke following surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a comprehensive review

Stroke associated with aortic valve replacement in calcific aortic stenosis, either via transcatheter implantation (TAVR) or via surgical replacement (SAVR), is one of the most devastating complications. However, data concerning the clinical impact and incidence of clinical and silent stroke complicating SAVR and TAVR are varying. This comprehensive review of the literature explores the genuine incidence of neurological events after these procedures. Additionally, potential factors responsible for the discrepancies in stroke rates in the current literature are analysed and a lack of uniform neurological definitions and standardized neurological assessments revealed. Current stroke rates after TAVR show a decline from 7 to 1.7-4.8% in recent studies. Randomized studies comparing TAVR with SAVR yielded initially a significantly higher stroke rate after TAVR procedures as opposed to SAVR. Recently published data showed opposite results with strokes being higher following SAVR. Current data concerning stroke after surgical valve replacement report significantly higher rates of clinical strokes (17%) than previously mentioned in the literature (≤4.9%). Silent cerebral lesions were detected in 68-93% after TAVR and 38-54% after SAVR. A broader application of cerebral protection devices may help to reduce embolic cerebral events.

Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism and Benefits and Risks of Thromboprophylaxis After Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Optimal thromboprophylaxis after cardiac surgery is uncertain. This systematic review aimed to define the incidence and risk factors for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), fatal and nonfatal pulmonary embolism (PE), and assess whether venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis was effective in reducing VTE without complications after cardiac surgery.

Methods and Results

Two reviewers independently searched and assessed the quality and outcomes of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on VTE after cardiac surgery in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane controlled trial register (1966 to December 2014). Sixty‐eight studies provided data on VTE outcomes or complications related to thromboprophylaxis after cardiac surgery. The majority of the studies were observational studies (n=49), 16 studies were RCTs, and 3 were meta‐analyses. VTE prophylaxis was associated with a reduced risk of PE (relative risk [RR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.72; P=0.0008) or symptomatic VTE (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28–0.71; P=0.0006) compared to the control without significant heterogeneity. Median incidence (interquartile range) of symptomatic DVT, PE, and fatal PE were 3.2% (0.6–8.1), 0.6% (0.3–2.9), and 0.3% (0.08–1.7), respectively. Previous history of VTE, obesity, left or right ventricular failure, and prolonged bed rest, mechanical ventilation, or use of a central venous catheter were common risk factors for VTE. Bleeding or cardiac tamponade requiring reoperation owing to pharmacological VTE prophylaxis alone, without systemic anticoagulation, was not observed.

Conclusions

Unless proven otherwise by adequately powered RCTs, initiating pharmacological VTE prophylaxis as soon as possible after cardiac surgery for patients who have no active bleeding is highly recommended.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy: the Brigham and Women's Hospital experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery (mini AVR) is a safe and effective treatment option at many hospital centers, but there has not been widespread adoption of the procedure. Critics of mini AVR have called for additional evidence with direct comparison to aortic valve replacement (AVR) via full sternotomy (FS).

METHODS

Our mini AVR approach is through a hemi-sternotomy (HS). We performed a propensity-score matched analysis of all patients undergoing isolated AVR via FS or HS at our institution since 2002, resulting in 552 matched pairs. Baseline characteristics were similar. Operative characteristics, transfusion rates, in-hospital outcomes as well as short and long term survival were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp times were shorter in the HS group: 106 minutes [inter-quartile ranges (IQR) 87-135] vs. 124 minutes (IQR 90-169), P≤0.001, and 76 minutes (IQR 63-97) vs. 80 minutes (IQR 62-114), P≤0.005, respectively. HS patients had shorter ventilation times (median 5.7 hours, IQR 3.5-10.3 vs. 6.3 hours, IQR 3.9-11.2, P≤0.022), shorter intensive care unit stay (median 42 hours, IQR 24-71 vs. 45 hours, IQR 24-87, P≤0.039), and shorter hospital length of stay (median 6 days, IQR 5-8 vs. 7 days, IQR 5-10, P≤0.001) compared with the FS group. Intraoperative transfusions were more common in FS group: 27.9% vs. 20.0%, P≤0.003. No differences were seen in short or long term survival, or time to aortic valve re-intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms the clinical benefits of minimally invasive AVR via HS, which includes decreased transfusion requirements, ventilation times, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay without compromising short and long term survival compared to conventional AVR via FS.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: A real-world multi-institutional analysis

BACKGROUND

Several single-center studies have reported excellent outcomes with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR). Although criticized as requiring more operative time and complexity, mini-AVR is increasingly performed. We compared contemporary outcomes and cost of mini-AVR versus conventional AVR in a multi-institutional regional cohort. We hypothesized that mini-AVR provides equivalent outcomes to conventional AVR without increased cost.

METHODS

Patient records for primary isolated AVR (2011-2013) were extracted from a regional, multi-institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and stratified by conventional versus mini-AVR, performed by either partial sternotomy or right thoracotomy. To compare similar patients, a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort was performed after adjusting for surgeon; operative year; and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score, including age and risk factors (n = 289 in each group). Differences in outcomes and cost were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1341 patients underwent primary isolated AVR, of which 442 (33%) underwent mini-AVR at 17 hospitals. Mortality, stroke, renal failure, and other major complications were equivalent between groups. Mini-AVR was associated with decreased ventilator time (5 vs 6 hours; P = .04) and decreased blood product transfusion (25% vs 32%; P = .04). A greater percentage of mini-AVR patients were discharged within 4 days of the operation (15.2% vs 4.8%; P < .001). Consequently, total hospital costs were lower in the mini-AVR group ($36,348 vs $38,239; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality and morbidity outcomes of mini-AVR are equivalent to conventional AVR. Mini-AVR is associated with decreased ventilator time, blood product use, early discharge, and reduced total hospital cost. In contemporary clinical practice, mini-AVR is safe and cost-effective.

A 16-year experience in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: context for the changing management of aortic valve disease

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term morbidity and mortality in patients with aortic valve disease who had minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) through upper hemisternotomy.

METHODS

From July 1996 to June 2012, a total of 1639 patients underwent minimally invasive aortic valve surgery (AVR). Patient data were extracted from hospital electronic records after institutional review board approval. Outcomes of interest included postoperative complication rates, perioperative mortality, and long-term survival.

RESULTS

The mean age was 67 years (SD, 14 years; range, 22-95 years). Of the total cohort, 211 (13%) underwent reoperative AVR. Postoperatively, 2.3% (37/1639) had reoperations to correct bleeding, 2.7% (44/1639) had strokes, 20.4% (334/1639) had new-onset atrial fibrillation, and 1.5% (24/1639) required permanent pacemakers. Only 34% (571/1639) of the patients received packed red blood cells. The median discharge was on day 6 (5-8), and 72.2% of the patients (1184/1639) were discharged home. Operative mortality was 2.9% (48/1639), and long-term survival at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years was 96%, 93%, 92%, and 92%, respectively. Operative mortality was 5.7% (12/208) for the reoperative patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The upper hemisternotomy approach for AVR is safe and reliable, especially for patients undergoing reoperations and those older than 80 years.

Aortic valve replacement in octogenarians with prior cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been advocated for very elderly patients with aortic stenosis, and prior cardiac surgery as a less invasive treatment option. Although surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) is safe and effective in selected elderly patients, the perioperative and mid-term outcomes of AVR in very elderly with prior cardiac surgery are unknown.

METHODS

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Database at our center enrolled 3,735 patients after AVR since 1997. In this time interval, we identified 61 patients 80 years and older who underwent AVR for severe AS or failed aortic bioprosthesis after having prior cardiac surgery. All clinical parameters were derived from the STS database. Follow-up mortality was assessed using the Social Security Death Index.

RESULTS

The average age of the patients was 83 ± 2 years, 77% were male, and 75% underwent an isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) as their first cardiac procedure. The mean ejection fraction was 0.53 ± 0.13. The CABG was performed concurrently in 49% of patients at the time of redo sternotomy and AVR. Stented bioprosthesis was implanted in 61% of patients and stentless in 39%. Perioperative mortality was 1.6% (1 of 61). One, 3, 5, and 7 year survival rates were 85%, 69%, 63%, and 43%, respectively. Patients with AVR only had similar survival to patients who underwent concomitant AVR and CABG. Type of aortic prosthesis did not influence postoperative survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients over the age of 80 with history of prior cardiac surgery, AVR can be performed safely with very good mid-term outcomes. Age alone should not be exclusion criteria for surgical AVR in octogenarians with prior cardiac surgery.

Current status of surgical treatment for aortic valve stenosis

In this review, we discuss the current surgical treatment for aortic valve stenosis. Surgical strategy for treatment of aortic valve stenosis is based on the risk profile of the patient. We reviewed the existing literature and present the current state of the art of these various approaches, taking into account clinical outcomes, quality of life, costs, and learning curve.

Geriatric cardiac surgery: chronology vs. biology

Cardiac surgery is increasingly performed in elderly patients, and whilst the incidence of common risk factors associated with poorer outcome increases with age, recent studies suggest that outcomes in this population may be better than is widely appreciated. As such, in this review we have examined the current evidence for common cardiac surgical procedures in patients aged over 70 years. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the elderly has similar early safety to percutaneous intervention, though repeat revascularisation is lower. Totally avoiding instrumentation of the ascending aorta with off-pump techniques may also reduce the incidence of neurological injury. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) significantly improves quality of life and provides excellent short- and long-term outcomes. Combined AVR and CABG carries higher risk but late survival is still excellent. Mini-sternotomy AVR in the elderly can provide comparable survival to full-sternotomy AVR. More accurate risk stratification systems are needed to appropriately select patients for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Mitral valve repair is superior to replacement in the elderly, although choosing the most effective method is important for achieving maximal quality of life. Minimally-invasive mitral valve surgery in the elderly has similar postoperative outcomes to sternotomy-based surgery, but reduces hospital length of stay and return to activity. In operative candidates, surgical repair is superior to percutaneous repair. Current evidence indicates that advanced age alone is not a predictor of mortality or morbidity in cardiac surgery. Thus surgery should not be overlooked or denied to the elderly solely on the basis of their "chronological age", without considering the patient's true "biological age".

Incidental moderate mitral regurgitation in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: review of guidelines and current evidence

Recent evidence has shown that moderate mitral regurgitation is common and clinically relevant in patients presenting for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Prospective multicenter clinical trials are now indicated to resolve the clinical equipoise about whether or not mitral valve intervention also is indicated at the time of aortic valve intervention. Advances in three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography, transcatheter mitral interventions, and surgical aortic valve replacement, including the advent of sutureless valves, likely will expand the therapeutic possibilities for moderate mitral regurgitation in the setting of aortic valve interventions for severe aortic stenosis.

Less invasive versus conventional heart valve surgery in patients with severe heart failure

OBJECTIVE

Patients with severe heart failure might benefit from reduced operative trauma, but rarely undergo less-invasive valve surgery. The present study compared the outcomes of less-invasive heart valve surgery with those of complete sternotomy in such patients.

METHODS

From January 1995 to July 2010, 871 patients in New York Heart Association class III or IV underwent valve surgery (aortic or mitral, or both). A less-invasive approach was used in 205. Propensity score matching yielded 185 matched pairs for outcomes comparison adjusted for patient characteristics and 139 pairs adjusted further for individual surgeon.

RESULTS

Without considering surgeons, myocardial ischemic times (59 ± 27 vs 64 ± 26 minutes, P = .04), cardiopulmonary bypass times (75 ± 35 vs 86 ± 34 minutes, P < .0001), and intensive care unit stays (median, 24 vs 43 hours; P = .007) were shorter for less-invasive surgery. Hospital morbidity, mortality (1.6% [3 of 185] vs 2.7% [5 of 185]; P = .5), and long-term survival (53% and 48% at 12 years; P = .3) were similar. After considering the surgeon, these benefits were not apparent; rather, efficiency, safety, and effectiveness were equivalent to those of complete sternotomy. Thus, myocardial ischemic (63 ± 30 vs 62 ± 25 minutes, P = .8) and cardiopulmonary bypass (80 ± 40 vs 81 ± 31 minutes, P = .5) times were similar, as were intensive care unit stay (median, 28 vs 30 hours; P = .09), postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality (2.2% [3 of 139] vs 3.6% [5 of 139]; P = .5), and long-term survival (57% and 53% at 12 years; P = .5).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with severe heart failure, less-invasive valve surgery is a viable option, yielding at least equivalent efficiency, safety, and effectiveness to complete sternotomy. However, achieving these outcomes requires surgeons experienced in less-invasive surgery.

Aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. Surgical therapy

Conventional aortic valve replacement is the standard approach for treating aortic stenosis, it is performed via a full or partial sternotomy, and is associated with low risks for patients and with excellent long-term outcomes. This also holds true for octogenarians, if they present without relevant comorbidities. After resection of the calcified native leaflets, biological prostheses with good functionality and durability are implanted. Elderly patients with an increasing risk profile, however, should be treated by a heart team using transcatheter approaches including cardiac surgery.

Early and intermediate survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 studies

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implants (TAVIs) is indicated as an alternative to surgical valve replacement for patients unfit for surgery. No systematic review has studied survival after 2 years and limited information is available on between-study heterogeneity.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review and meta-analysis on intermediate survival after TAVI.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and references of selected articles.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Clinical studies evaluating TAVI, published between 2010 and 2012, reporting survival at 2 or more years.

PARTICIPANTS

About 3500 patients from 14 studies.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Proportion meta-analysis with 95% CI and heterogeneity assessment (I(2) and Cochran's Q). Meta-regression analysis was performed as well.

RESULTS

Pooled immediate postoperative death rate was 7.8% (95% CI 6.2% to 9.8%, I(2)=40.8%; Cochran's Q=97.7 with 92.9 df, p<0.0001) and stroke rate was 3.8% (95% CI 2.8% to 5.0%, I(2)=34.3%; Cochran's Q=96.5 with 92.9 df, p<0.0001). Pooled death rates at 1, 2 and 3 years were 23.2%, 31.0% and 38.6%, respectively. Among studies reporting on concomitant percutaneous coronary intervention, pooled death rates at 30 days, 1 year and 2 years were 6.3%, 17.8% and 25.8%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Although our analysis examined a total of about 3500 patients, only a minority of these were actually followed up after 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled survival rates after TAVI (at 2 years: 69.0%; at 3 years: 61.4%) can be considered excellent, particularly in the light of the high-risk profile of this patient population. IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: The favourable intermediate outcome in patients subjected to TAVI seems to justify its use in patients unfit for surgery. Such pooled results indicate that TAVI is a valid alternative to surgical valve replacement, but lack of data on late durability after TAVI prevents its use in low-risk patients with long expectancy of life.

The year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: selected highlights from 2011

There have been rapid advances in oral anticoagulation. The oral factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban and apixaban and the oral direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran recently have been rigorously evaluated. These novel anticoagulants will usher in a new paradigm for perioperative anticoagulation. Perioperative blood conservation in cardiac surgery recently has been highlighted in the updated guidelines by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. These recommendations reflect a comprehensive evaluation of the recent evidence to optimize transfusion practice. Transcatheter mitral valve repair continues to mature. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis has entered the clinical mainstream, with randomized trials showing its superiority over medical management and its equivalency to surgical valve replacement in high-risk patients. This transformational technology represents a major leadership opportunity for the cardiac anesthesiologist. Minimally invasive valve surgery has shown effectiveness in high-risk patients. Radial access is equivalent to femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes but significantly reduces the risk of local vascular complications. Recent trials have further clarified the roles of medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with significant coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. The past year has witnessed major advances in cardiovascular practice with new drugs, new devices, and new guidelines. The coming year most likely will advance these achievements to enhance the care of patients.

Use of Axillary Cannulation for Simultaneous Endo-Occlusion and Antegrade Perfusion during Minimally Invasive Surgery

Objective

We aimed to develop an antegrade arterial perfusion method that would allow a single suture line on the heart.

Methods

Using an 8-mm Dacron graft sewn to the right axillary artery, we performed antegrade arterial flow and simultaneous endo-occlusion, as well as the delivery of antegrade cardioplegia.

Results

Five patients underwent right axillary antegrade flow, with intention to use axillary endo-occlusion. There were no deaths, axillary artery injuries, or conversions to sternotomy. One patient who had a small (6 mm) axillary artery required femoral arterial balloon placement with axillary arterial flow. When using a 100-mm endobal-loon, transesophageal echo alone is suitable for placement of the endo-balloon. All patients are alive and doing well at least 1 year after surgery.

Conclusions

The right axillary artery is a suitable conduit for simultaneous endo-occlusion, antegrade flow, and antegrade cardioplegia delivery during mitral valve surgery.