Our findings showed that SURD-AVR is a safe and effective alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement and is associated with excellent clinical outcomes. Further adequately powered statistical analyses from the retrospective and prospective SURD-IR will allow for the development of high-quality evidence-based clinical guidelines for SURD-AVR.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of sutureless and rapid deployment (SURD) valves on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. The aim of this study was to assess clinical characteristics and in-hospital results of patients receiving SURD-AVR through less invasive approaches in the large population of the Sutureless and Rapid Deployment International Registry (SURD-IR). METHODS: Of the 1935 patients who received primary isolated SURD-AVR between 2009 and 2018, a total of 1418 (73.3%) underwent MI interventions and were included in this analysis. SURD-AVR was performed using upper ministernotomy in 56.4% (n = 800) of cases and anterior right thoracotomy in 43.6% (n = 618). Perceval S was implanted in 1011 (71.3%) patients and Edwards Intuity or Intuity Elite in 407 (28.7%) patients. RESULTS: Overall in-hospital mortality and stroke rates were 1.7% and 2%, respectively. A definitive pacemaker implantation was reported in 9% of cases and significantly decreased over the observational period, from 20.6% to 5.6% (P = 0.002). The Perceval valve was associated with shorter operative times and was more frequently implanted in patients receiving anterior right thoracotomy incision. The Intuity valve was preferred in younger patients and revealed superior postoperative haemodynamic results. CONCLUSIONS: SURD-AVR was largely performed through less invasive approaches and can be considered as a primary indication in MI surgery. In the SURD-IR cohort, MI SURD-AVR using both Perceval and Intuity valves appeared a safe and reproducible procedure associated with promising early results.

OBJECTIVES Surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed via a full sternotomy or a minimal access approach (mini-AVR). Despite long-term experience with the procedure, mini-AVR is not routinely adopted. Our goal was to compare contemporary outcomes of mini-AVR and conventional AVR in a large multi-institutional national cohort. METHODS A total of 5801 patients from 10 different centres who had a mini-AVR (2851) or AVR (2950) from 2011 to 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Standard aortic prostheses were used in all cases. The use of the minimally invasive approach has increased over the years. The primary outcome is the incidence of 30-day deaths following mini-AVR and AVR. Secondary outcomes are the occurrence of major complications following both procedures. Propensity-matched comparisons were performed based on the multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS In the overall population patients who had AVR had an increased surgical risk based on the EuroSCORE, and the 30-day mortality rate was higher (1.5% and 2.3% in mini-AVR and AVR, respectively; P = 0.048). Propensity scores identified 2257 patients per group with similar baseline profiles. In the matched groups, patients who had mini-AVR, despite longer cardiopulmonary bypass (81 ± 32 vs 76 ± 28 min; P = 0.004) and cross-clamp (64 ± 24 vs 59 ± 21 min; P ≤ 0.001) times, had lower 30-day mortality rates (1.2% vs 2.0%; P = 0.036), reduced low cardiac output (0.8% vs 1.4%; P = 0.046) and reduced postoperative length of stay (9 ± 8 vs 10 ± 7 days; P = 0.004). Blood transfusions (36.4% vs 30.8%; P ≤ 0.001) and atrial fibrillation (26.0% vs 21.5%, P ≤ 0.001) were higher in patients who had the mini-AVR. CONCLUSIONS In a large multi-institutional recent cohort, minimal access approach aortic valve replacement is associated with reduced 30-day mortality rates and shorter postoperative lengths of stay compared to standard sternotomy. A prospective randomized trial is needed to overcome the possible biases of a retrospective study.

No abstract

This study provides early results of re-operations after the prior surgical treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (AAD) and identifies risk factors for mortality. Between May 2003 and January 2014, 117 aortic re-operations after an initial operation for AAD (a mean time from the first procedure was 3.98 years, with a range of 0.1-20.87 years) were performed in 110 patients (a mean age of 59.8 ± 12.6 years) in seven European institutions. The re-operation was indicated due to a proximal aortic pathology in ninety cases: twenty aortic root aneurysms, seventeen root re-dissections, twenty-seven aortic valve insufficiencies and twenty-six proximal anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. In fifty-eight cases, repetitive surgical treatment was subscripted because of distal aortic pathology: eighteen arch re-dissections, fifteen arch dilation and twenty-five anastomotic pseudoaneurysms. Surgical procedures comprised a total of seventy-one isolated proximals, thirty-one isolated distals and fifteen combined interventions. In-hospital mortality was 19.6 % (twenty-three patients); 11.1 % in patients with elective/urgent indication and 66.6 % in emergency cases. Mortality rates for isolated proximal, distal and combined operations regardless of the emergency setting were 14.1 % (10 pts.), 25.8 % (8 pts.) and 33.3 % (5 pts.), respectively. The causes of death were cardiac in eight, neurological in three, MOF in five, sepsis in two, bleeding in three and lung failure in two patients. A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that risk factors for mortality included previous distal procedure (p = 0.04), new distal procedure (p = 0.018) and emergency operation (p < 0.001). New proximal procedures were not found to be risk factors for early mortality (p = 0.15). This multicenter experience shows that the outcome of REAAD is highly dependent on the localization and extension of aortic pathology and the need for emergency treatment. Surgery in an emergency setting and distal re-do operations after previous AAD remain a surgical challenge, while proximal aortic re-operations show a lower mortality rate. Foresighted decision-making is needed in cases of AAD repair, as the results are essential preconditions for further surgical interventions.