Background-Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) is a novel coronary operation that does not require infrastructure and is potentially available to all cardiac surgeons. It aims at decreasing the invasiveness of conventional CABG while preserving the applicability and durability of surgical revascularization. We examined the feasibility and safety of MICS CABG in the first large series of this operation to date. Methods and Results-All myocardial territories are accessed via a 4-to 6-cm left fifth intercostal thoracotomy. An apical positioner and epicardial stabilizer are introduced into the chest through the subxyphoid and left seventh intercostal spaces, respectively. The left internal thoracic artery is used to graft the left anterior descending artery, and radial artery or saphenous vein segments are used to graft the lateral and inferior myocardial territories. Proximal anastomoses are performed directly onto the aorta or from the left internal thoracic artery as a T-graft. In the first 450 consecutive MICS CABG procedures at our 2 centers, meanϮSD age was 62.3Ϯ10.7 years and 123 patients were female (27%). The average number of grafts was 2.1Ϯ0.7, with complete revascularization in 95% of patients. There were 34 patients in whom cardiopulmonary bypass was used (7.6%), 17 conversions to sternotomy (3.8%), and 10 reinterventions for bleeding (2.2%). Perioperative mortality occurred in 6 patients (1.3%). Conclusions-MICS CABG is feasible and has excellent procedural and short-term outcomes. This operation could potentially make multivessel minimally invasive coronary surgery safe, effective, and more widely available.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch at an indexed effective orifice area of 0.85 cm2/m2 or less after aortic valve replacement primarily affects patients with impaired preoperative left ventricular function and results in decreased survival, lower freedom from heart failure, and incomplete left ventricular mass regression. Patients with impaired left ventricular function represent a critical population in whom prosthesis-patient mismatch should be avoided at the time of aortic valve replacement.

Background-Several centers favor replacing a diseased native heart valve with a tissue rather than a mechanical prosthesis, even in younger adult patients. However, long-term data supporting this approach are lacking. We examined the survival implications of selecting a tissue versus a mechanical prosthesis at initial left-heart valve replacement in a cohort of adults Ͻ60 years of age who were followed for over 20 years. Methods and Results-Comorbid and procedural data were available from 6554 patients who underwent valve replacement at our institution over the last 35 years. Of these, 1512 patients contributed follow-up data beyond 20 years, of whom 567 were adults Ͻ60 years of age at first left-heart valve operation (mean survivor follow-up, 24.0Ϯ3.1 years). Late outcomes were examined with Cox regression. Valve reoperation, often for prostheses that are no longer commercially available, occurred in 89% and 84% of patients by 20 years after tissue aortic and mitral valve replacement, respectively, and was associated with a mortality of 4.3%. There was no survival difference between patients implanted with a tissue versus a mechanical prosthesis at initial aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio 0.95; 95% CI: 0.7, 1.3; Pϭ0.7). For mitral valve replacement patients, long-term survival was poorer than after aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.8; Pϭ0.003), but again no detrimental effect was associated with use of a tissue versus a mechanical prosthesis (hazard ratio 0.9; 95% CI 0.5, 1.4; Pϭ0.5). Conclusions-In

These analyses identify independent predictors of congestive heart failure symptoms and congestive heart failure death late after aortic valve replacement and indicate that prosthesis size has a significant effect on this cardiac end point, but not on overall survival after aortic valve replacement.

MICS CABG is a valuable alternative for patients in need of multivessel CABG. The operation appears at least as safe as OPCAB, and associated with shorter hospital length of stay, less wound infections, and faster postoperative recovery than OPCAB.