Search

Surgical aortic valve replacement is the treatment of choice in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis because it provides excellent early and long-term clinical outcomes in terms of hemodynamics, valve durability, and freedom from valve-related complications. In recent years, the number of high-risk patients being referred for surgical aortic valve replacement has increased. A considerable proportion of these patients are deemed operable despite the high risk. In order to modify the risk predominantly associated with duration of cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp time sutureless aortic valve technology has been developed. Sutureless aortic bioprosthetic valves, introduced in clinical practice in 2009, contrary to the conventional surgical technique for implantation (interrupted or continuous sutures, after thorough annular decalcification) are not hand sewn. This technological modification reduces the implantation time with potential translation into improved outcomes for high-risk patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement. Currently, three sutureless bioprostheses are available and amongst these the largest published experience is available for the patented and CE marked truly sutureless PERCEVAL S valve (Sorin Group, Saluggia, Italy). This article provides an overview of the published literature for Perceval S valve with an attempt to better define the role of sutureless aortic valve replacement in the treatment of critical aortic valve stenosis.

The expanding indications for angioplasty coupled with the successful short and mid-term results of randomized controlled trials of drug-eluting stents have already had an unquestionable impact on the practice of coronary revascularization operations. However, coronary artery bypass grafting remains a major mode of therapy for coronary artery disease. It is likely that surgery will continue to be preferred for more complex subsets and that surgeons will have to continue to maintain good results in patients with more complex problems. Concerns regarding morbidity associated with conventional surgical myocardial revascularization on cardiopulmonary bypass have led to a resurgence of interest in off-pump bypass surgery during the last decade, with the expectation that it would be safer if cardiopulmonary bypass could be avoided. This review summarizes the impact of off-pump bypass surgery in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with conventional coronary artery bypass on cardiopulmonary bypass by evaluating the current best-available evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing off-pump surgery with conventional bypass grafting.

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.

Cardiopulmonary bypass is a double-edged sword. Without it, corrective cardiac surgery would not be possible in the majority of children with congenital heart disease. However, much of the perioperative morbidity that occurs after cardiac surgery can be attributed to a large extent to pathophysiologic processes engendered by extracorporeal circulation. One of the challenges that has confronted pediatric cardiac surgeons has been to minimize the consequences of cardiopulmonary bypass. Ultrafiltration is a strategy that has been used for many years in an effort to attenuate the effects of hemodilution that occur when small children undergo surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Over the past several years, a modified technique of ultrafiltration, commonly known as modified ultrafiltration, has been used with increasing enthusiasm. Multiple studies have been undertaken to assess the effects of modified ultrafiltration on organ function and postoperative morbidity following repair of congenital heart defects. This review attempts to evaluate current available scientific evidence on the impact of modified ultrafiltration on organ function and morbidity after pediatric cardiac surgery.

Cardiac surgery and cardiopulmonary bypass initiate a systemic inflammatory response largely determined by blood contact with foreign surfaces and the activation of complement. It is generally accepted that cardiopulmonary bypass initiates a whole-body inflammatory reaction. The magnitude of this inflammatory reaction varies, but the persistence of any degree of inflammation may be considered potentially harmful to the cardiac patient. The development of strategies to control the inflammatory response following cardiac surgery is currently the focus of considerable research efforts. Diverse techniques including maintenance of hemodynamic stability, minimization of exposure to cardiopulmonary bypass circuitry, and pharmacologic and immunomodulatory agents have been examined in clinical studies. This article briefly reviews the current concepts of the systemic inflammatory response following cardiac surgery, and the various therapeutic strategies being used to modulate this response.

Coronary artery bypass grafting has been performed predominantly with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest, which allows optimization of the surgical field and consistent placement of grafts. However, the use of cardiopulmonary bypass is also associated with numerous complications. A surgical technique avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass should, in theory, reduce the incidence of such complications and lead to improved patient outcomes. This assumption has rekindled interest in performing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery, which is currently the focus of scientific scrutiny. The existing world medical literature contains a staggering amount of research related to this technique. Although the available evidence from a large number of randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials, propensity-matched analyses, and experimental data suggests that outcomes are better after off-pump than after on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery, skepticism still exists about the safety and efficacy of the off-pump technique. In the present era of evidence-based medicine, results from randomized clinical trials are given the highest recognition. This review attempts to evaluate the best currently available evidence from clinical trials about the safety and efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery.