Tricuspid valve disease carries a very unfavorable prognosis when medically treated. Despite that, surgical intervention is still underperformed for tricuspid valve disease due to the reported high morbidity and mortality from a sternotomy approach. This had led to a shift towards maximizing medical therapy for right ventricular failure and, as a result, a more significant delay in surgical referrals with surgical risks when patients are finally referred. Tricuspid valve patients usually have other co-morbidities resulting from their systemic venous congestion and low flow cardiac output. Minimally invasive tricuspid valve surgery provides less tissue injury and, as a result, less trauma during surgery. This provides a hope for both patients and treating doctors to be more open for providing this procedure with less complications. Isolated minimally invasive tricuspid valve surgery is still not performed as widely as expected. This can be partly due to the adverse outcomes historically labelled to tricuspid valve surgery or by the long journey of learning the surgical team would need to commit to with a minimal access approach. In this article we will review the perioperative pathway, and outcomes of isolated minimally invasive tricuspid valve surgery in the available English literature.

Background Minimally invasive surgical approaches have gained popularity among patients and surgeons. The aim of this project was to assess the safety of initiating aortic valve replacement via an anterior right thoracotomy program. Methods Between May 2015 and May 2019, data of all isolated primary aortic valve replacements were extracted retrospectively from our prospectively collected database and categorized into conventional median sternotomy, hemisternotomy, and anterior right thoracotomy cases. In total, 661 patients underwent isolated primary aortic valve replacement, of whom 429 (65%) had a median sternotomy, 126 (19%) had a hemisternotomy, and 106 (16%) had an anterior right thoracotomy. Preoperative characteristics were similar in each of the three groups. Statistical testing of the surgical groups was undertaken using the chi-square test for categorical variables and one-way analysis of variance with Tukey post-hoc pairwise tests (where appropriate) for continuous variables, to identify differences between pairs of data. Results Cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times were significantly longer in the anterior right thoracotomy group compared to the hemisternotomy and median sternotomy groups ( p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly less and hospital stay significantly shorter in the hemisternotomy group compared to median sternotomy group but not the anterior right thoracotomy group. Mortality, stroke, renal, gastrointestinal and respiratory complications showed no statistical differences. Conclusion Surgical aortic valve replacement had a very low mortality and morbidity in our experience, and it is safe to start a minimal access program for aortic valve replacement.

Primary cardiac tumours for which surgical resection is the main stay of treatment are rare and present both diagnostic and management challenges. The majority of patients are asymptomatic and one third of those who have symptoms present with vague constitutional symptoms which further complicates the process of early diagnosis. The current state-of-the art multi-modality imaging, routine use of intraoperative transoesophageal echocardiogram (TOE) in most cardiac centres and the tremendous advances of endoscopic adjuncts greatly enhances both the diagnosis and management of those group of patients. The surgical burden of median sternotomy and the contemporary trend towards less invasive surgery urged the necessity for adopting minimally invasive surgery in general and cardiac tumours are no exception. Despite the rarity of theses tumours, minimally invasive resection is successful in the hands of experienced minimally invasive surgeons who employ the same minimal access valve surgery platform to access the tumours in various cardiac chambers and valves with no compromise to the oncological clearance and hence achieve the benefits of minimally invasive surgery without compromising long term outcomes.

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 multicentre 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 valve-in-valve TAVI. There were 125 pairs for analysis after propensity score matching. Mean age was 75.2±8.5 years. In-hospital mortality was 7.2% (n=9) for redo-AVR vs 0 for valve-in-valve TAVI, p=0.002. Surgical patients suffered more post-operative complications, including IABP 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 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 trans-catheter aortic valve implantation provides better early outcomes, as opposed to redo surgical aortic valve replacement, although there was no difference in mid-term survival in patients successfully discharged from hospital.

No abstract