Search

Objectives: We sought to assess the safety of training in cardiothoracic surgery comparing outcomes of cases performed by trainees versus fully trained surgeons., Methods: EmBase, Scopus, PubMed, and OVID MEDLINE were searched in August 2021 independently by two authors. A third author arbitrated decisions to resolve disagreements. Inclusion criteria were articles on cardiothoracic surgery reporting on outcomes for trainees. Studies were assessed for appropriateness as per CBEM criteria. Eight hundred and ninety-two results were obtained, 27 represented best evidence (2-meta-analyses, 1-RCT, and 24 retrospective cohort studies)., Results: In all 474,160 operative outcomes were assessed for 434,535 coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (431,329 on-pump vs. 3206 off-pump), 3090 AVR, 1740 MVR/repair, 26,433 mixed, 3565 congenital, and 4797 thoracic procedures. In all 398,058 cases were performed by trainees and 75,943 by consultants. One hundred fifty-nine cases were indeterminate. There were no statistically significant differences in the patients' preoperative risk scores. All studies excluded extreme high-risk patients in emergency setting, patients with poor left ventricular function, and reoperation cases that were undertaken by consultants. There were no differences in cardiopulmonary bypass and clamp times for CABG. Times for valve replacement and repair cases were longer for trainees. There were no differences in the postoperative outcomes including perioperative myocardial infarction, resternotomy for bleeding, stroke, renal failure, intensive therapy unit length of stay, and total length of stay. One study reported no differences on angiographic graft patency at 1 year. There were no differences in in-hospital or midterm mortality out to 5-years., Discussion: Trainees can perform cardiothoracic surgery in dedicated high-volume units with outcomes comparable to those of fully trained surgeons., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Although concomitant pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is used more frequently than the Cox-Maze procedure, which is currently the gold standard treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), data on the comparative effectiveness of the two procedures after concomitant mitral valve (MV) surgery are still limited., Objective: We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the mid-term mortality and recurrence of AF after concomitant Cox-Maze and PVI in patients with AF undergoing MV surgery based on 12-month follow-up., Methods: Medline, EMBASE databases, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1987 up to March 2022 for studies comparing concomitant Cox-Maze and PVI. Additionally, a meta-analysis of RCTs was performed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes between these two surgical ablation techniques., Results: Three RCTs and three observational studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included in this systematic review with 790 patients in total (532 concomitant Cox-Maze and 258 PVI during MV surgery). Most studies reported that the concomitant Cox-Maze procedure was associated with higher freedom from AF at 12-month follow-up than PVI. Regarding AF recurrence, estimates pooled across the three RCTs indicated large heterogeneity and high uncertainty. In the largest and highest quality RCT, 12-month AF recurrence was higher in the PVI arm (risk ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 0.91-2.73). In two out of three higher-quality observational studies, 12-month AF recurrence was higher in PVI than in the Cox-Maze arm (estimated adjusted probabilities 11% vs. 8% and 35% vs. 17%, respectively). RCTs demonstrated comparable 12-month mortality between concomitant Cox-Maze and PVI, while observational studies demonstrated the survival benefit of Cox-Maze., Conclusions: Concomitant Cox-Maze in AF patients undergoing MV surgery is associated with better mid-term freedom from AF when compared to PVI with comparable mid-term survival. Large observational studies suggest that there might be a mid-term survival benefit among patients after concomitant Cox-Maze. Further large RCTs with longer standardized follow-up are required to clarify the benefits of concomitant Cox-Maze in AF patients during MV surgery., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Cardiac Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement such as the reimplantation (David) procedure is becoming increasingly popular. Despite the fact that the procedure is technically more complex, long-term studies demonstrated that excellent clinical outcomes in selected patients with durable repair are achievable. Benefits of minimal access cardiac surgery have stimulated enthusiasm in the use of this access for valve-sparing aortic root replacement., Methods: We have reviewed available literature on the topic of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) via minimally invasive access through upper hemisternotomy in an attempt to assess current trends and to recognize potential advantages of this technique. Patient selection and preoperative work-up play important role in performing minimally invasive David procedure safely. Surgical technique corresponds to the standard David procedure, with a few exceptions related to the minimal access, and is performed via upper ministernotomy., Results and Conclusion: Evidence from nonrandomized observational and comparative studies demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes of minimally invasive David procedure in selected patients with comparable perioperative mortality and outcomes to the conventional technique. To date, David procedure with a minimal access technique has been performed in carefully selected patients. We believe it could be particularly beneficial to provide younger patients (Marfan syndrome and bicuspid aortic valve) with minimally invasive David procedure as it can allow faster recovery with improved cosmesis with excellent outcomes. A decision to perform minimally invasive David procedure should be individualized to each patient and based on the experience of the team. Further large prospective randomized studies with long-term follow-up are still needed to confirm durability of minimal access technique., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: Despite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options., Methods: A systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity-matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310)., Results: Random-effects meta-analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p > .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-1.35, -1.20], p < .001) and cross-clamp times (SMD: -1.05, 95% CI: [-1.12, -0.98], p < .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: -0.385, 95% CI: [-0.679, -0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p < .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow-up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p > .05)., Conclusions: Despite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Cardiac Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Surgical radiofrequency Maze procedure is a well-developed technology with an established safety profile. Clinical complications, albeit rare, have been described secondary to usage of unipolar radiofrequency devices. Bipolar radiofrequency devices have virtually eliminated the complications associated with unipolar devices, thereby combining safety with efficacy. We report a case of chylopericardial tamponade and chylothorax following radiofrequency Maze procedure using a bipolar device. , (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Postinfarction left ventricular aneurysm is a serious disorder that can lead to congestive heart failure, lethal ventricular arrhythmia, and premature death. Surgical treatment is indicated in established cases of congestive heart failure, angina pectoris, malignant ventricular arrhythmia, or recurrent embolization from the left ventricle. The goal of surgical intervention is to correct the size and geometry of the left ventricle, reduce wall tension and paradoxical movement, and improve systolic function. Surgical techniques for repair of left ventricular aneurysm have evolved over the last five decades. Aneurysmectomy and linear repair of the left ventricle was introduced by Cooley and colleagues in 1958 and remained the standard procedure until the late 1980s. Endoventricular patch plasty (EVPP) was then introduced as a more physiologic repair than the linear closure technique, especially when the aneurysm extends into the septum. However, there is still controversy whether EVPP is superior to simple linear resection in terms of impact on early and late clinical outcomes. In the current era of evidence-based medicine, the best strategy to resolve a controversy is through the explicit and conscientious assessment of current best evidence. This review article attempts to evaluate the current best available evidence on the impact of technique of left ventricular aneurysm repair on postoperative clinical outcomes.

Unlabelled: Recent years have seen a surge in the enthusiasm to perform minimal access valve surgery to reduce morbidity and improve clinical outcomes. Despite tremendous enthusiasm on the part of proponents of minimal access valve surgery, skepticism still exists about the actual impact of minimal access valve surgery in reducing postoperative morbidity. This review article attempts to evaluate the current best available evidence on the impact of minimal access valve surgery on postoperative clinical outcomes., Methods: The English language scientific literature was reviewed primarily by searching Medline from 1966 through February 2008 using PubMed interface. All blinded or unblinded randomized clinical trials, comparing minimal access valve surgery with conventional valve surgery through a full sternotomy, recruiting adult human patients undergoing valve repair, or replacement and reporting impact of these two approaches on at least 1 pertinent clinical or economic outcome, were included., Results: Current best available evidence from randomized clinical trials (Grade A, Level 1b) does not show any significant quantitative differences between minimal access valve surgery and conventional valve surgery for perioperative mortality or other primary outcome events of stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure. There are small but statistically significant benefits for minimal access valve surgery for surrogate outcomes of ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, and total length of stay., Conclusion: The published evidence is thin and a large multicenter randomized clinical trial with preferably standardization of minimal access valve surgery techniques and long term follow-up is required to validate the safety and efficacy of minimal access valve surgery.

The systemic inflammatory response after coronary artery bypass grafting using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) contributes substantially to postoperative organ dysfunction and coagulation disorders. Important features of this inflammatory reaction include the activation of complement and leukocytes, the release of proinflammatory cytokines, alterations in the metabolism of nitric oxide, and an increase in the production of oxygen-free radicals, which in some cases may lead to oxidant stress injury. Several strategies including the use of steroids, use of aprotinin, heparin-coated CPB circuits, and hemofiltration have been reported to reduce the inflammatory reaction induced by CPB and its consequences. A more radical and effective way of counteracting the effects of the inflammatory reaction and oxidative stress may be the omission of CPB itself. The development and application of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) technology has largely been driven by this theme of avoiding systemic inflammatory reaction to decrease the incidence and/or severity of adverse outcomes. This review article discusses the influence of cardiopulmonary bypass on systemic inflammation and attempts to evaluate the current best available evidence on the impact of OPCAB on systemic inflammation.

There is consensus of opinion that patients with moderately severe to severe (grade 3+ or 4+) ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) should undergo mitral valve surgery at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), while trace to mild (grade 1+) IMR can probably be left alone. However, the management of moderate (grade 2+) IMR continues to be a subject of constant debate and controversy. In particular, as techniques of valvular repair continue to be refined; many surgeons have advocated mitral valve repair and concomitant CABG for these patients. Others, however, have continued to treat these patients with revascularization alone and close postoperative observation of the mitral valve. In their opinion, degree of concomitant mitral valve dysfunction in this group of patients does not justify the increased operative risks associated with simultaneous mitral valve correction. We are currently practicing in an era of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in which clinical decision-making has to be guided by current best available evidence from scientific, clinical studies. This review article attempts to tackle this controversial issue and find the best approach of dealing with moderate IMR at the time of CABG by evaluating current best available evidence.

For more than three decades cardiac surgeons have been used to perform delicate coronary anastomoses on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). However, the price of a still and bloodless field is ultimately paid by the patients in the form of sequelae of negative effects of CPB including blood trauma, activation of a series of inflammatory responses, nonpulsatile flow, and possible embolization of air or debris. In an attempt to avoid these deleterious effects of CPB, off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB) has been rediscovered and refined. Although abundant evidence is available to suggest that excellent results can be achieved when CPB is avoided, concerns have been raised about quality of anastomosis and graft patency rates after OPCAB surgery. We are currently practicing in an era of evidence-based medicine that mandates the prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) as the most accurate tool for determining a treatment benefit compared with a control population. This review article attempts to evaluate the current best available evidence from RCTs on the impact of OPCAB surgery on graft patency.

The development of drug-eluting coronary stents has proved to be a quantum advance in interventional cardiology, rivaling the impact of stenting itself. Drug-eluting coronary stents deliver effective local concentrations of antiproliferative drugs (thus avoiding systemic toxicities), without substantially modifying the technique of percutaneous coronary intervention. Studies involving several different stent platforms and antiproliferative drug coatings have recently demonstrated dramatic reductions in restenosis rates, compared to conventional bare metal stents. Although the clinical benefits of drug-eluting stents are increasingly evident, important concerns about their long-term safety and costs have been raised. Furthermore, drug-eluting stents are being claimed to replace coronary artery bypass surgery in the near future. This review article evaluates the current best available evidence on the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents with a focus on the impact of this "revolutionary" new technology on the practice of coronary artery bypass surgery.

Past four decades have seen a gradual evolution in aortic valve replacement surgery. The ideal valve substitute should combine central flow, low transvalvular gradient, low thrombogenicity, durability, easy availability, resistance to infection, freedom from anticoagulation, and easy implantability. Although there are several types of valves available to replace the diseased aortic valve-autograft, allograft, xenograft, mechanical, and bioprosthetic valves-none is ideal. On one end of the spectrum is the pulmonary autograft, which comes closest to achieving these goals, but creates a double valve procedure for single valve disease, while on the other end are the mechanical valves and stented tissue valves, which allow easy "off the shelf" availability as well as easy implantability but are limited by the potential drawback of causing intrinsic obstruction to some extent because of the space occupied by the stent and sewing ring. Stentless xenograft aortic valves have been developed as a compromise between these ends of the valve spectrum. Stentless aortic valves have been reported to provide more physiologic hemodynamic behavior and cause more timely and thorough regression of ventricular hypertrophy. This review article attempts to evaluate current best available evidence from randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of stentless aortic valves on left ventricular function and hypertrophy.

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is a prerequisite for open-heart surgery, and is a procedure routinely used. CPB exposes blood to artificial surfaces, to mechanical trauma from the pump, to alterations in temperature, and to dilution with fluids, whole blood, plasma products, and drugs, and leads to the activation of platelets, coagulation, and fibrinolysis. Coagulopathy during cardiac surgery with CPB results in impairment in hemostasis and subsequently higher morbidity and mortality. Recent advances in surgical techniques and postoperative management have aimed at reducing postoperative morbidity and mortality. Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery is one such advance that attempts to avoid the deleterious effects of extracorporeal circulation by performing myocardial revascularization without CPB. Emerging evidence from several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as large registries such as the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database suggests that OPCAB reduces the postoperative morbidity and mortality. This review article attempts to evaluate the current best available evidence from RCTs on the impact of OPCAB on postoperative bleeding and transfusion requirements.