Minimally invasive, isolated TV surgery as reoperation without caval occlusion and on the beating heart can be safe and may improve clinical outcome.

No abstract

In 2020, nearly 30,000 published references appeared in the PubMed for the search term “cardiac surgery.” While SARS-CoV-2 affected the number of surgical procedures, it did not affect outcomes reporting. Using the PRISMA approach, we selected relevant publications and prepared a results-oriented summary. We reviewed primarily the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with interventional alternatives. The coronary field started with a discussion on trial data value and their interpretation. Registry comparisons of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention confirmed outcomes for severe coronary artery disease and advanced comorbidities with CABG. Multiple arterial grafting was best. In aortic valve surgery, meta-analyses of randomized trials report that transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a short-term advantage but long-term survival may be better with classic aortic valve replacement (AVR). Minimally invasive AVR and decellularized homografts emerged as hopeful techniques. In mitral and tricuspid valve surgery, excellent perioperative and long-term outcomes were presented for structural mitral regurgitation. For both, coronary and valve surgery, outcomes are strongly dependent on surgeon expertise. Kidney disease increases perioperative risk, but does not limit the surgical treatment effect. Finally, a cursory look is thrown on aortic, transplant, and assist-device surgery with a glimpse into the current stand of xenotransplantation. As in recent years, this article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. We aimed to provide up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

Background We report our starting experience with parasternal minimally‐invasive aortic valve replacement. Methods From 7/14 to 8/18, 192 received classic aortic valve surgery using a 5 cm parasternal incision and percutaneous groin cannulation. Patients were selected based on anatomic feasibility judged by preoperative computed tomography‐scan. Except for porcelain aorta, left‐sided aortic location, or endocarditic abscess, there were no exclusions. Results Patients were divided into two groups (first and second half of experience). Demographics were equal. Patients’ mean ejection fraction was 59%, with preoperative stroke (12%), severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (11%), and endocarditis (2%). All cases were elective or urgent. The Euroscore II was 3.37 ± 3.31 in the first and 3.68 ± 3.97 in the second group (n.s.). Biological prostheses were implanted in 90%. Operating times in the first group were just under 3 hours, with bypass times of 129 ± 32 minutes and clamp times of 77 ± 20 minutes. In the second group, these times changed only minimally. There were three conversions to sternotomy in the first, but only one in the second group. Similarly, three patients died in the first and one in the second group. There were fewer complications in the second group regarding revision for bleeding (7 vs 1%), stroke (4 vs 0%) dialysis (3 vs 1%), and pericardial effusions (3 vs 1%). The O/E ratio dropped from 0.93 to 0.28. Conclusions Parasternal minimally‐invasive aortic valve replacement is a feasible technique associated with a slow learning curve but the potential to achieve improved outcomes. Considering the transcatheter alternatives, the relative risk reduction may be worth investigating in future trials.

Myocardial revascularization using BITA can be safely achieved off-pump through a left-sided minithoracotomy with good postoperative and short-term outcomes.