Introduction Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) techniques are increasingly being adopted into clinical routine for various risk groups. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is seen in up to 75% of patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) presenting with typical angina pectoris. Due to high mortality rates and procedural complications in these patients, a hybrid concept of simultaneous transaortic TAVI and off‐pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) can be a feasible treatment option. Methods Between April 2014 and July 2020, 10 consecutive high‐risk patients underwent concomitant transaortic TAVI and OPCAB at our institution. All indications were discussed in Heart Team and decisions were made based on patients' comorbidities and complexity of CAD. The study endpoints were 30‐day mortality, device success, and development of postoperative adverse events defined by the Valve Academic Research Consorium. Results The mean age of the patients was 77.9 ± 7.1 years old. All patients presented with multiple comorbidities (mean logistic EuroSCORE 26.5 ± 12.3%, median EuroSCORE II 5.13% [interquartile range 4.2–9.5], mean STS‐Score 6.04 ± 1.6%). Five patients (50%) presented with porcelain aorta. No conversion to conventional procedures was needed. 30‐day mortality occurred in one patient (10%). Complete revascularization was achieved in seven (70%) of the patients. Device success rate was 100%. No paravalvular leakage was detected. No stroke, myocardial infarction or vascular complications were observed. Conclusions A hybrid approach combining transaortic TAVI and OPCAB might be a safe and feasible method of treatment in high‐risk patients presenting with severe AS and CAD who are not eligible for conventional surgical or interventional solutions.

Patients who undergo transapical transcatheter aortic/mitral valve implantation are at higher risk of morbidity and mortality than those undergoing transvascular procedures. In addition, these patients have prolonged intensive care and hospital courses. Fast-track anesthesia could reduce perioperative complications and admission stays in such patients. Methods:This retrospective single-center study, evaluates six high-risk patients undergoing transapical valve implantation between 01/2020 till 01/2021. All patients received a paravertebral block (PVB) as part of a fast-track approach. The airway was secured with a Gastro-double-lumen laryngeal mask which includes one orifice was for ventilation and one for the transesophageal echocardiography probe. Anesthesia was maintained with a volatile anesthetic (Sevoflurane MAC 1%). Immediately post procedure, all patients were awakened and admitted to the intermediate/intensive-care unit.Results: Three patients were females, mean age =71±6 years, patients' risk profiles were high (mean Log. EuroSCORE-I 22% & STS-PROM 10%). No incidents of re-intubation, atelectasis/pneumonia, low output syndrome, stroke, dialysis, pacemaker implantation or operative mortality were reported. One patient (16.7%) underwent re-exploration for bleeding and developed a wound infection. Postoperative pain scores showed that no patient required additional analgesics after the initial eight hours post procedure. Mean postoperative intermediate/intensive-care stay was 13.8±3.2 hours and patients were mobilized early and discharged to the normal ward. Conclusions:Fast-track anesthesia using paravertebral-blockade for transcatheter transapical valve replacement in high-risk patients is a possible anesthetic approach. An effective PVB, in addition to a doublelumen laryngeal mask, provide an alternative strategy to conventional general anesthesia. These promising results could encourage further consideration of this approach in similar cardiac surgery patients.

Background Echocardiographic quantification of ejection fraction (EF) by manual endocardial tracing requires training, is time-consuming and potentially user-dependent, whereas determination of cardiac output by pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) is invasive and carries a risk of complications. Recently, a novel software for semi-automated EF and CO assessment (AutoEF) using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) has been introduced. We hypothesized that AutoEF would provide EF values different from those obtained by the modified Simpson’s method in transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) and that AutoEF CO measurements would not agree with those obtained via VTILVOT in TOE and by thermodilution using PAC. Methods In 167 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), TTE cine loops of apical 4- and 2-chamber views were recorded after anaesthesia induction under steady-state conditions. Subsequently, TOE was performed following a standardized protocol, and CO was determined by thermodilution. EF and CO were assessed by TTE AutoEF as well as TOE, using the modified Simpson’s method, and Doppler measurements via velocity time integral in the LV outflow tract (VTILVOT). We determined Pearson’s correlation coefficients r and carried out Bland–Altman analyses. The primary endpoints were differences in EF and CO. The secondary endpoints were differences in left ventricular volumes at end diastole (LVEDV) and end systole (LVESV). Results AutoEF and the modified Simpson’s method in TOE showed moderate EF correlation (r = 0.38, p < 0.01) with a bias of -12.6% (95% limits of agreement (95%LOA): -36.6 – 11.3%). AutoEF CO correlated poorly both with VTILVOT in TOE (r = 0.19, p < 0.01) and thermodilution (r = 0.28, p < 0.01). The CO bias between AutoEF and VTILVOT was 1.33 l min−1 (95%LOA: -1.72 – 4.38 l min−1) and 1.39 l min−1 (95%LOA -1.34 – 4.12 l min−1) between AutoEF and thermodilution, respectively. AutoEF yielded both significantly lower EF (EFAutoEF: 42.0% (IQR 29.0 — 55.0%) vs. EFTOE Simpson: 55.2% (IQR 40.1 — 70.3%), p < 0.01) and CO values than the reference methods (COAutoEF biplane: 2.30 l min−1 (IQR 1.30 - 3.30 l min−1) vs. COVTI LVOT: 3.64 l min−1 (IQR 2.05 - 5.23 l min−1) and COPAC: 3.90 l min−1 (IQR 2.30 - 5.50 l min−1), p < 0.01)). Conclusions AutoEF correlated moderately with TOE EF determined by the modified Simpson’s method but poorly both with VTILVOT and thermodilution CO. A systematic bias was detected overestimating LV volumes and underestimating both EF and CO compared to the reference methods. Trial registration German Register for Clinical Trials (DRKS-ID DRKS00010666, date of registration: 08/07/2016).