Search

Objective: Globally significant variation in treatment and course of heart valve disease (HVD) exists, and outcome measurement is procedure focused instead of patient focused. This article describes the development of a patient-related (International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement) standard set of outcomes and case mix to be measured in patients with HVD., Methods: A multisociety working group was formed that included patient representatives and representatives from scientific cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery societies that publish current guidelines for HVD. The standard set was developed to monitor the patient's journey from diagnosis to treatment with either a surgical or transcatheter procedure. Candidate clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and case mix were identified through benchmark analyses and systematic reviews. Using an online modified Delphi process, the working group voted on final outcomes/case mix and corresponding definition., Results: Patients with aortic/mitral/tricuspid valve disease or root/ascending aorta >40 mm were included in the standard set. Patients entered the dataset when the diagnosis of HVD was established, allowing outcome measurement in the preprocedural, periprocedural, and postprocedural phases of patients' lives. The working group defined 5 outcome domains: vital status, patient-reported outcomes, progression of disease, cardiac function and durability, and complications of treatment. Subsequently, 16 outcome measures, including 2 patient-reported outcomes, were selected to be tracked in patients with HVD. Case-mix variables included demographic factors, demographic variables, echocardiographic variables, heart catheterization variables, and specific details on aortic/mitral/tricuspid valves and their specific interventions., Conclusions: Through a unique collaborative effort between patients and cardiology and cardiothoracic surgery societies, a standard set of measures for HVD was developed. This dataset focuses on outcome measurement regardless of treatment, moving from procedure- to patient-centered outcomes. Implementation of this dataset will facilitate global standardization of outcome measurement, allow meaningful comparison between health care systems and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines, and eventually improve patient care for those experiencing HVD worldwide., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: E.A. has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health. S.A. has received meeting/travel support from the European Society of Cardiology; participated in Data Management and Analysis Group of the British Intervention Cardiovascular Society; and is a Leader of the Quality of Care group of the European Society of Cardiology. A.A.A. has received payment/honoraria fees from Abbott Medical Pty Ltd and Corcym Pty Ltd. H.H.B. has received consulting fees for being a proctor for Intuitive Surgical; has received lecture honoraria from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences; has served on a data safety monitoring board for Edwards Lifesciences; and has served in leadership positions for ISMICS, SRS, STS, and ACS. P.B.J., via ICHOM, received funding from Adetec Coeur and Edwards Lifesciences for this project. Z.D-S., via ICHOM, received funding from Adetec Coeur and Edwards Lifesciences for this project. D.E. has received research and advisory collaboration with GE Healthcare and Abbott Vascular. G.E. has received speaker honoraria (payments to the institution) from Edwards Lifesciences, Medela, and AstraZeneca. R.T.H. has received honoraria for lectures from Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Philips Healthcare; and Institutional Consulting Contracts (no direct compensation) from Abbott, Anteris, Boston Scientific, and Novartis. A.J. has been a senior project leader for the development of the standard set for heart valve disease, which entails development of study materials, leading the working group through the process, and quality assurance of all materials. E.L. has received a patent for extra aortic ring from Coroneo Inc; and has received royalties/licenses for a patent extra aortic ring from Coroneo Inc. B.M. has received consulting fees from Corcym, Edwards Lifesciences, and Novostia; and has received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Medtronic. P.P. has received institutional funding with no direct compensation from Novartis, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, and Cardiac Success; has received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Edwards Lifesciences; and has participated on an advisory board for Medtronic. O.P. has been co-chair of ACC/AHA guidelines on aortic disease (2022); has served as a member of the EACTS/STS guidelines on aortic disease (2024); and has been a consultant (no fees) for W.L. Gore and Associates, Terumo Aortic, Intressa Vasc, and AbioMed. V.R. has participated on an advisory board for Rednvia Co, Ltd (Adaptive Phase 2/3 Multicenter, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized, Parallel, 3 Arm Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of DA-1229 (Evogliptin) in Patient’s Calcific Aortic Valve Disease with Mild to Moderate Aortic Stenosis [EVOID-AS]); has received stock from Amgen, Edwards Lifesciences, Intuitive Surgical, Inc, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck-Schering Plough, Viatris, Organon, Regeneron, and AstraZeneca. F.J.S. has received consulting fees as a paid consultant and SAB member for Xeltis; and has received support for meetings/travel as a paid consultant and SAB member Xeltis. P.S. has received support (payments to institution) from Edwards Lifesciences and support (InstitutionEd) from Medtronic; has received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Edwards; has served on a data safety monitoring board for Anteris; and has received stock/stock options from Xenter. M. Sitges has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott; has received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Medtronic, General Electric, and Siemens Healthineers; has received payment for expert testimony from Abbott and General Electric; has received meeting/travel support from Abbott and Edwards Lifesciences; has served as past president of the Heart Valve Society; has been elected president of the Societat Catalana de Cardiologia; and has served with the Tricuspid Focus Group PCR. M. Szerlip has received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Edwards Lifesciences, CVI, SCAI, and Boston Scientific; has served on a data safety monitoring board for Abbott Vascular; and is a member of the Baylor Scott and White Heart Hospital Board, the SCAI Board of Trustees, and the IAGS Board. W.Y.S. has received honoraria for lectures/presentations from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Terumo Aortic, and Artivion. J.J.M.T. is past president and senior advisor to Heart Valve Society Board. V.H.T. has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Boston Scientific, CroíValve, Edwards Lifesciences, Articure, and Egnite Medical; and has received equity from Dasi Simulations and Trisol. F.B., D.C., G.D., H.J., J.K., S.M., R.M., R.S., F.S., J.S., K.V., W.W., and A.Z. have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Objective: Mitral valve repair (MVr) has become the standard therapy for degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR), but real-world late mortality, reintervention, and readmission data are lacking. This study estimates MVr outcomes for DMR to 3 years in the Medicare fee-for-service population., Methods: There were 4,219 DMR patients older than 65 years undergoing MVr within the Medicare 100% standard analytic file from October 2015 to December 2018 who were evaluated. Outcomes were analyzed for isolated MVr patients ( n = 2,433) and patients undergoing MVr with certain concomitant procedures: MVr + tricuspid valve surgery (TVS; n = 619), MVr + cardiac ablation (CA; n = 540), and MVr + left atrial appendage closure ( n = 627). Outcomes over a 3-year period included all-cause mortality, reintervention, rehospitalization, and common complications. All outcomes were modeled with adjustments for patient demographics and comorbid conditions., Results: The average age for all patients was 71.9 ± 5.2 years. Adjusted all-cause mortality and MV reintervention (surgery or transcatheter) at 3 years for the primary cohort of isolated MVr was 3.5% and 1.6%, respectively. Directionally higher mortality at 3 years was observed in patients with concomitant TVS or CA. All-cause readmission and cardiac readmission for isolated MVr was 37.0% and 14.1%, with the highest rates for those with concomitant TVS or CA. Acute kidney injury and stroke/transient ischemic attack were the most common adverse events over 3 years for all patients., Conclusions: The 3-year mortality and reintervention rates in Medicare patients undergoing degenerative MVr are low. Those undergoing concomitant TVS or CA had directionally higher mortality and cardiac readmission rates. These results help refine outcome benchmarks as new transcatheter MVr procedures continue to emerge., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr Thourani reports receiving grants from Edwards Lifesciences; receiving payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureau, manuscript writing, or educational events from Edwards Lifesciences; and being a consultant and conducting research for Abbott Vascular, Artivion, AtriCure, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, and Medtronic. Dr Vemulapalli has received grants/contracts from the American College of Cardiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Cytokinetics, Abbott Vascular, National Institutes of Health (R01 and SBIR), and Boston Scientific and has received consulting fees/been on the advisory board with Janssen, American College of Physicians, HeartFlow, and Edwards LifeSciences. Dr Gammie is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and founder of Protaryx Medical and of Marlin Medical. Dr Nguyen has received speaker honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, CryoLife, and Abbott.

Objective: There is an increasing amount of evidence supporting use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at low or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR is now approved for use in all patient cohorts. Despite this, there remains debate about the relative efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR in lower-risk cohorts and various subgroups of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched trials to guide a consensus among expert cardiologists and surgeons., Methods: Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a thorough search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year., Results: Early mortality was lower in TAVR compared to SAVR in RCTs, but not propensity-matched studies in low-risk cohorts (0.66% vs 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.98, I 2 = 0%). No difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR was identified in intermediate-risk patients at early or later time points. Incidence of perioperative stroke in 3 low-risk RCTs was significantly lower in TAVR (0.4%) than SAVR (1.4%; OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, I 2 = 0%). There was no difference in stroke for intermediate-risk patients between TAVR and SAVR. The expert panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons provided recommendations for TAVR and SAVR in various clinical scenarios., Conclusions: In RCTs comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients, early mortality and stroke were lower in TAVR, but did not differ at 1 year. There was no difference in mortality and stroke in intermediate-risk patients. The Multidisciplinary Heart Team must consider individual patient characteristics and preferences when recommending TAVR or SAVR. The decision must consider the long-term management of each patient's aortic valve disease.

An increasing number of surgically implanted bioprostheses will require re-intervention for structural valve deterioration. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) has become an alternative to reoperative surgery, currently approved for high-risk and inoperable patients. Challenges to the technique include higher rates of prosthesis-patient mismatch and coronary obstruction, compared to native valve TAVR. Herein, we review results of ViV TAVR and novel techniques to overcome the aforementioned challenges.

A 74-year-old man presented with progressive dyspnea on exertion. History included peripheral arterial disease and coronary artery bypass grafting with aortic valve replacement 12 years ago. Subsequently, the surgical valve developed severe stenosis and moderate insufficiency. He underwent a transapical valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement 5 years before presentation. This second valve developed a mean gradient of 66 mm Hg with mild insufficiency. The patient was treated with a third aortic valve using an alternative transcaval approach, significantly alleviating his symptoms.

Objective: Low ejection fraction (EF < 40%) portends adverse outcomes in patients undergoing valvular heart surgery. The role of traditional median sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR) compared with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) in this cohort remains incompletely understood., Methods: A multi-institutional retrospective review of 1503 patients who underwent SAVR (n = 815) and MIAVR via right anterior thoracotomy (n = 688) from 2011 to 2014 was performed. Patients were stratified into two groups: EF of less than 40% and EF of 40% or more. In each EF group, SAVR and MIAVR patients were propensity matched by age, sex, body mass index, race, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, dialysis, cerebrovascular disease, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular accident, peripheral vascular disease, last creatinine level, EF, previous MI and cardiogenic shock, and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score., Results: Among patients with an EF of 40% or more (377 pairs), patients who underwent MIAVR compared with SAVR had decreased intensive care unit hours (56.8% vs 84.6%, P < 0.001), postoperative length of stay (7.1 vs 7.9 days, P = 0.04), incidence of atrial fibrillation (18.8% vs 38.7%, P < 0.001), bleeding (0.8% vs 3.2%, P = 0.04), and a trend toward decreased 30-day mortality (0.3% vs 1.3%, P = 0.22). The STS scores were largely equivalent in patients undergoing MIAVR compared with SAVR (2.4% vs 2.6%, P = 0.09). In patients with an EF of less than 40% (35 pairs), there was no difference in intensive care unit hours (69% vs 72.6%, P = 0.80), postoperative length of stay (10.3 vs 7.2 days, P = 0.13), 30-day mortality (3.8% vs 0.8%, P = 0.50), or the STS score (3.3% vs 3.2%, P = 0.68)., Conclusions: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in patients with preserved EF was associated with improved short-term outcomes compared with SAVR. In patients with left ventricular dysfunction, short-term outcomes between MIAVR and SAVR are largely equivalent.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement as an alternative to open surgical repair is rapidly becoming more used in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement offers the benefit of being much less invasive than traditional surgical repair and has evolved as a therapeutic option for patients with prohibitive surgical risk or those deemed surgically inoperable. Nevertheless, despite its potential to mitigate risk in this frail population, it comes with its own unique set of complications. Technological advancements in valve structure, function, and delivery have and continue to attempt to minimize these risks. This review aims to summarize current advancements in transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology while also introducing areas of future direction in this exciting new field.

Objective: Multiple-valve (MUV) procedures currently exhibit higher operative mortality than do single-valve procedures, but a paucity of scientific information exists to explain the observation. This topic was examined using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database., Methods: All patients in the The Society of Thoracic Surgeons data set undergoing valve surgery (except pulmonary valve and aortic root operations) from 1993 through 2007 were identified (N = 623,039). Baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes were contrasted between all seven combinations of single-valve and MUV procedures involving aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valves. Seven independent logistic regression analyses were performed, based on the seven procedures, and multivariable risk factors for mortality were compared, with emphasis on single-valve versus MUV procedures., Results: Baseline characteristics for MUV procedures (n = 67,926) shared many similarities to those for single-valve procedures (n = 555,113), including age, ejection fraction, and comorbidities. Preoperative renal failure, New York Heart Association class III to IV, nonelective presentation, and reoperation were slightly more common in MUV subsets, and coronary bypass was less frequent. Operative mortality was almost double for MUV as compared with single-valve procedures (10.7% vs 5.7%, P = 0.0001). Categorical predictors with the largest odds ratios for mortality were emergency status, renal failure, and second reoperation. However, predictors for mortality were generally consistent in order and magnitude between the single-valve and MUV subgroups., Conclusions: Despite similarities in preoperative profiles of the patients undergoing single-valve and MUV procedures, mortality for MUV surgery remains considerably higher. Determinants of operative mortality and morbidity differ little across the procedural groups, and these findings serve as a benchmark for future studies, as well as suggest a continued search for explanations of poorer MUV outcomes.

Objective: Transit time flow measurement (TTFM) is a method used to assess intraoperative blood flow after vascular anastomoses. Angiography represents the criterion standard for the assessment of graft patency after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The purpose of this study was to compare flow measurements from TTFM to diagnostic angiography., Methods: From October 9, 2009, to April 30, 2012, a total of 259 patients underwent robotic-assisted CABG procedures at a single institution. Of these, 160 patients had both TTFM and either intraoperative or postoperative angiography of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending coronary artery graft. Transit time flow measurements were obtained after completion of the anastomosis and after administration of protamine before chest closure. Transit time flow measurement assessment included pulsatility index, diastolic fraction, and flow (milliliters per minute). Angiograms were graded according to the Fitzgibbon criteria. The patients were grouped according to angiographic findings, with perfect grafts defined as FitzGibbon A and problematic grafts defined as either Fitzgibbon B or O., Results: Overall, there were 152 (95%) of 160 angiographically perfect grafts (FitzGibbon A). Of the eight problematic grafts, five were occluded (Fitzgibbon O) and three had significant flow-limiting lesions (FitzGibbon B). Two patients had intraoperative graft revision after completion angiography, one had redo CABG during the same hospitalization, and five were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. A significant difference was seen in mean ± SD flow (34.3 ± 16.8 mL/min vs 23.9 ± 12.5 mL/min, P = 0.033) between patent and nonpatent grafts but not in pulsatility index (1.98 ± 0.76 vs 1.65 ± 0.48, P = 0.16) or diastolic fraction (73.5% ± 8.45% vs 70.9% ± 6.15%, P = 0.13)., Conclusions: Although TTFM can be a useful tool for graft assessment after CABG, false negatives can occur. Angiography remains the criterion standard to assess graft patency and quality of the anastomosis after CABG.

Objective: : Coronary artery bypass grafting (CAB) on elderly patients presenting with multivessel coronary artery disease has become routine in modern day operating rooms. The aim of our study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes in octogenarian patients undergoing off-pump CAB (OPCAB) versus on-pump CAB (ONCAB)., Methods: : A propensity-adjusted, retrospective review of patients older than 80 years who underwent primary CAB from January 1996 to September 2008 at our institution's hospitals was performed. Nine hundred thirty-seven patients were divided into two groups: OPCAB (n = 540) or ONCAB (n = 397). A propensity score was calculated based on 29 preoperative risk factors to adjust for selection bias when comparing the groups for differences in death, stroke, myocardial infarction incidence, and their composite (major adverse cardiac events). Long-term survival status was determined by cross-referencing patient records with the Social Security Death Index. Logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazards analysis were used to determine group differences in short- and long-term survival, respectively, adjusted for the propensity score. Kaplan-Meier curves were fit to estimate 10-year survival., Results: : The mean age (OPCAB: 82.9 ± 2.8 years vs ONCAB: 82.3 ± 2.4, P = 0.003) and male sex (OPCAB: 292/540, 54.1% vs ONCAB: 220/397, 55.4%, P = 0.68) were clinically similar between groups. Although the ejection fraction (OPCAB: 52.1 ± 12.5% vs ONCAB: 50.6 ± 13.1, P = 0.10) were similar between groups, the mean number of distal anastomoses [OPCAB: 2.7 ± 1.0 (median 3) vs ONCAB: 3.4 ± 0.9 (median 3), P < 0.001] were less in the OPCAB group. The median postoperative length of stay was 7 days for OPCAB group and 6 for the ONCAB group (P = 0.31). The Society of Thoracic Surgery predicted risk of in-hospital mortality was similar for OPCAB (5.4%) and ONCAB (5.3%) patients (P = 0.81). However, observed in-hospital mortality was improved for patients in the OPCAB group (OPCAB: 15/540, 2.8% vs ONCAB: 37/397, 9.3%, P = 0.007). Ten-year survival was similar between groups (OPCAB: 28.8% vs ONCAB: 26.3%, P = 0.22)., Conclusions: : In this series, OPCAB reduced the incidence of in-hospital mortality compared with ONCAB. Long-term mortality was similar between groups.

Tremendous advances have been made in the treatment of end-stage heart failure patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). An important factor playing a role in the improved clinical outcomes is the development of continuous flow, rotary LVADs. New technology using magnetic levitation and hydrodynamic suspension to eliminate contact bearings offers the potential of more durable and efficacious mechanical circulatory blood pumps. Clinical trials evaluating these novel "third-generation" LVADs are in progress.

Objectives: : Transmyocardial revascularization (TMR) has been used as an isolated or adjunctive revascularization therapy in patients presumed to have nonbypassable coronary artery disease. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short- and midterm mortality for patients with complete revascularization using TMR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with those patients with incomplete CABG revascularization and to document long-term follow-up in patients receiving TMR + CABG., Methods: : Seventy TMR + CABG patients were cohort matched with 70 patients undergoing isolated CABG with circumflex coronary artery disease, but with no bypassable distal targets, from 1999 to 2005 at Emory University Hospital. The data were retrospectively reviewed from a database after being prospectively entered. Results are presented in mean ± standard deviation, and Kaplan-Meier curves were created for long-term all-cause mortality., Results: : The TMR + CABG patients had a similar incidences to the CABG only group for preoperative ejection fraction (50.9 ± 11.2% vs. 50.7 ± 10.3%, P = 0.93), number of grafts (2.6 ± 1.1 vs. 2.5 ± 1.3, P = 0.5), and number of diseased vessels (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 2.9 ± 0.4, P = 0.26). Off-pump surgery was used more often in the CABG alone group versus the TMR combined with CABG group (74.3% vs. 41.4%, P < 0.001). Postoperatively, there was no statistical difference among the TMR + CABG and the CABG alone groups for intensive care unit length of stay (4.3 ± 7.8 days vs. 2.6 ± 3.4 days, P = 0.026), postsurgical length of stay (7.6 ± 6.1 days vs. 6.8 ± 4.5 days, P = 0.31), stroke events (1.4% vs. 1.4%, P = 1.00), myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.65), and 30-day mortality (5.7% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.70). Long-term survival rate was not statistically significant. In addition, 4-year follow-up in the TMR + CABG group had symptom improvement with reduction in New York Heart Association classification for class III/IV (P < 0.0001, baseline vs. 4-year follow-up)., Conclusions: : The combination of TMR and CABG for complete revascularization is safe and carries no further risk to patients compared with CABG only. CABG + TMR patients tend to have increased resource utilization. Long-term follow-up shows similar survival between the groups. TMR can be a useful adjunct to CABG for complete revascularization.

Objective: : It is not known whether use of a clampless facilitating device during proximal graft anastamosis decreases intraoperative cerebral emboli in patients with mild atherosclerotic ascending aorta (AAA) having off-pump coronary artery bypass., Methods: : After intraoperative epiaortic ultrasound showed no more than mild (grade I-II) atherosclerotic ascending aorta, 20 patients were randomized to receive either partial clamping (PC, n = 10) or the HEARTSTRING clampless device (HS, n = 9) for proximal graft construction on the ascending aorta. Continuous transcranial Doppler monitoring, with capability to discern gaseous from solid particulates, was used intraoperatively to monitor high-intensity transient signals (HITS) in the middle cerebral arteries. Postoperative diffusion-weighted brain magnetic resonance imaging documented old and new ischemic brain lesions., Results: : There were no significant differences between the groups in the number of proximals (P = 0.14), distals (P = 0.4), or intraoperative cell saver transfusions (P = 0.69). The total number of HITS was not significantly different between the PC and HS groups (P = 0.2). However, the number of solid HITS was significantly lower in the HS than in the PC group (2.7 ± 2.6 versus 14.0 ± 8.1; P < 0.001). The number of gaseous emboli in the HS group was fourfold greater when a mister-blower rather than a suction device was used to clear blood away from the HS site. Postoperatively, there were no deaths, myocardial infarctions, or clinical strokes observed in either group. Diffusion-weighted cerebral magnetic resonance imaging revealed no statistical difference between groups for new infarct lesions., Conclusions: : Use of the HS device during off-pump coronary artery bypass was associated with significantly fewer intraoperative solid emboli in the middle cerebral artery than PC of the ascending aorta.

Objective: : Epiaortic ultrasound (EU) reliably reveals ascending aortic atherosclerosis (AAA), allowing strategies to minimize the risk of embolization or plaque disruption during coronary artery bypass grafting. Our objective was to delineate if EU-guided intervention improved outcomes., Methods: : Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (2004-2007) were categorized by EU grade (grade 1-2 [mild] vs. 3-5 [moderate/severe]) and the use of an aortic clamp. A propensity score estimated probability of clamp use was based on 45 risk factors. Multiple logistic regression models measured the association between outcomes-death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)-and the primary variables (grade and clamp use), adjusted for propensity score., Results: : Grade was available in 4278 patients. Patients with grade 3 to 5 AAA had an increased risk of death (adjusted odds ratios (AOR) 3.11; P < 0.001), stroke (AOR 2.12; P < 0.001), and MACCE (AOR 2.58; P < 0.001). Aortic clamping (any clamp, all grades) led to a higher risk of stroke (AOR 2.77; P = 0.032). EU altered aortic manipulation in 530 patients (12.4%). In this group, patients with high grade aortas had similar rates of death, stroke or MACCE, when compared with patients with low-grade aortas., Conclusions: : EU alters surgical strategy. Patients with grade 3 to 5 AAA are at increased risk of death, stroke, and MACCE compared with patients with grade 1 to 2 AAA. Clamping the aorta (any grade) increases the risk for stroke. Aortic clamping should be avoided in patients with grade 3 to 5 AAA, but EU may minimize morbidity and mortality if a clamp must be used.

Objective: : Left main coronary artery disease (LMD) is a known risk factor for perioperative complications. This study compares off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) versus on-pump coronary artery bypass (ONCAB) grafting, CABG, with respect to in-hospital death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in CABG patients with and without LMD., Methods: : Among 13,108 consecutive isolated patients with CABG treated from 1997 to 2007, 2891 patients (22.1%) were preoperatively found to have LMD. Of 5917 patients with OPCAB, 1276 (21.6%) had LMD, whereas among patients with ONCAB, 1615 of 7191 (22.5%) had LMD. Surgery type, LMD, and their interaction were examined for their impact on operative mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and MACE via multiple logistic regression models and adjusted odds ratios (AOR)., Results: : Utilization of OPCAB for coronary revascularization in patients with LMD disease gradually increased from an initial low of 1.3% of patients in 1997 to a peak of 80.8% in 2007. OPCAB was associated with reduced incidence of stroke (AOR = 0.51, P < 0.001) and MACE (AOR = 0.66, P = 0.002), whereas LMD was associated with an increased incidence of MACE (AOR = 1.24, P = 0.038). No interactions between surgery type and LMD existed, meaning that the 2 conditions did not combine in any way to modify outcomes., Conclusions: : Patients with LMD are more likely to suffer a MACE event than those without LMD. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting is marginally associated with lesser risk of operative mortality and significantly associated with less stroke and overall MACE when compared with ONCAB. This benefit of OPCAB is similar for patients with and without LMD.

Objective: : Bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting during coronary artery bypass (CABG) improves long-term and event-free survival but may carry a higher risk of wound complications. It is unknown whether preoperative hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), a measure of long-term glucose control, predicts deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) after BITA grafting., Methods: : Of 6356 consecutive patients who underwent isolated CABG between January 1, 2002 and March 30, 2007 and received at least one internal thoracic artery graft, 5199 (81.8%) had preoperative HbA1c levels obtained. BITA grafting was performed in 622 (9.8%) patients. A propensity score measured each patient's probability of having BITA versus single ITA based on 52 risk factors. The primary endpoint was DSWI. Multivariable logistic models with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) examined the effect of HbA1c, BITA grafting, and their interaction on outcomes, adjusted for the propensity score and postoperative glucose levels., Results: : Patients undergoing BITA grafting with HbA1c ≥7% had a higher incidence of DSWI compared with patients with HbA1c <7% (5.0% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.014). After multivariable adjustment, BITA was associated with an increased risk of DSWI (AOR = 2.84, 95% confidence interval 1.41-5.74) in all patients (P = 0.004). For each unit increase in HbA1c, there was a 31% increased risk of DSWI (AOR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.16-1.49, P < 0.001). Patients with HbA1c ≥7% had 2.88-fold increase in DSWI compared with patients with HbA1c <7%., Conclusions: : Elevated preoperative HbA1c and BITA grafting were significant predictors of DSWI after CABG. Elevated HbA1c level should be considered in the risk/benefit analysis when selecting patients for BITA grafting.

Background: : Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves symptoms, quality of life, and ejection fraction in selected patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and interventricular conduction delay. Transvenous insertion of left ventricular (LV) pacing leads via the coronary sinus is unsuccessful in 8-10% of patients. This study describes intermediate-term follow up of minimally invasive surgical techniques for CRT as a viable alternative after failed transvenous lead insertion., Methods: : From March 2001 to October 2005, fifty-four patients with NYHA Class III-IV symptoms, QRS duration 181 ± 40 milliseconds, and LV ejection fraction 19.7 ± 8.0% underwent a total of 56 minimally invasive LV lead placements via thoracoscopic video assistance (n = 38) or minithoracotomy (n = 17). One patient required full thoracotomy after a previous video-assisted thoracoscopic procedure. Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography was used to assess changes in LV function., Results: : Acute thresholds for the active lead measured 1.10 ± 0.62 V, with R-wave amplitude of 12.3 ± 6.6 mV and impedance of 631 ± 185 Ohm. Thirty-day mortality was 5%. There were no perioperative myocardial infarctions or strokes. Five patients required transfusion, 3 had exacerbation of prior renal insufficiency, 5 had pulmonary complications, and 8 required inotropic support for more than 48 hours. Intermediate-term follow up (mean 20 ± 16 months, range 11 days to 55 months) revealed 3 patients with lead failure requiring additional surgical intervention. Hospitalization due to worsening CHF occurred in 5 patients, and 2 of these patients required intravenous inotropic support. QRS duration decreased to 146 ± 36 milliseconds postoperatively (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: : Minimally invasive surgical lead placement safely and effectively accomplishes cardiac resynchronization using either thoracoscopic or minithoracotomy techniques.

Objective: : Application of off-pump techniques to reoperative coronary artery bypass (redo CABG) has been limited by technical difficulty and potential for embolism of atheromatous debris from diseased grafts, resulting in myocardial infarction and rapid hemodynamic deterioration. We compared outcomes after off-pump (OPCAB) and on-pump (ONCAB) in redo CABG., Methods: : A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent redo CABG at a single academic institution between January 1997 and December 2004. Outcomes were compared between groups based on intention to treat. Propensity scores were calculated for each patient using 23 preoperative risk factors. Logistic regression was applied for each end point as a function of group and propensity score., Results: : A total of 771 consecutive patients had redo CABG (639 ONCAB and 132 OPCAB); 22 patients (16.7%) were converted from OPCAB to ONCAB for hemodynamic in stability, severe adhesions, or graft injury; 7 patients (1.1%) were converted from ONCAB to OPCAB for severe aortic calcification. Propensity-matched comparison of outcomes after OPCAB versus ONCAB for redo CABG showed that OPCAB was associated with a reduction in postoperative complications, transfusion, atrial fibrillation, and length of stay. OPCAB patients received fewer grafts with similar use of left internal mammary artery conduit; conversion from OPCAB to ONCAB did not reduce the benefit of OPCAB., Conclusions: : OPCAB can be safely and effectively applied to reoperative CABG in selected cases.