Evidence from this study suggests del Nido cardioplegia use in routine adult cases may be safe, result in comparable clinical outcomes, and streamline surgical workflow. The trend for troponin should be investigated further because it may suggest superior myocardial protection with the del Nido solution.

Background We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. Methods In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04501978 . Findings Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–...

This study suggests that the addition of CM to mitral valve procedures, even with a high degree of complexity, did not increase operative risk. In long-term follow-up, the CM procedure demonstrated acceptable rhythm success, reduced AF burden, and remarkably low stroke rate. Individual surgeon experience and training may notably influence long-term surgical ablation for AF success.

A multidisciplinary blood conservation program can significantly control blood transfusion rates, improve outcomes, and be sustained over time. Efforts are needed to implement evidence-based protocols to standardize and decrease blood use in cardiac surgery to improve outcomes and reduce cost.

Objective: Newly published guidelines made the highest level recommendation for surgical treatment for atrial fibrillation. However, the number of patients without a mitral valve procedure with atrial fibrillation who are treated with concomitant surgical ablation is still low (15%-25%), because surgeons are reluctant to perform procedures in patients who would not otherwise require left atriotomy. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of concomitant Cox maze with and without mitral valve procedures.Methods: Patients who underwent concomitant Cox maze procedures were prospectively followed since September 2005. Of the 711 patients, 238 did not receive mitral valve surgery. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance preoperative characteristics between patients with and without mitral valve procedures (164/group after matching).Results: Before matching, patients in the mitral valve group were younger (65 vs 67 years, P ¼ .047) and had higher euroSCORE II (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation; 3.2% vs 2.6%, P ¼ .002), larger mean left atrial size (5.3 vs 4.8 cm, P <.001), and shorter median atrial fibrillation duration (19 vs 25 months, P ¼ .064). Early outcomes were similar for the matched groups. Cumulative 5-year freedom from stroke did not differ between matched mitral valve and non-mitral valve groups (96.1% vs 96.6%, P ¼ .667). At each time point, the proportion in sinus rhythm off antiarrhythmic medications was similar for the matched groups, including 5 years after surgery (68% vs 63%, P ¼ .492). Conclusions:The Cox maze procedure is safe and effective with comparable outcomes when performed concomitant to mitral valve or non-mitral valve surgery. Surgeons should base the decision to perform surgical ablation procedures on atrial fibrillation pathophysiology and the benefit to patients, not on the type of concomitant procedure.