Search

Myocardial revascularization in coronary artery disease via percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery effectively relieves symptoms, significantly improves prognosis and quality of life when combined with guideline-directed medical therapy. Hybrid coronary revascularization is a promising alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG in selected patients and is defined as a planned and/or intended combination of consecutive CABG surgery using at least 1 internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending (LAD), and catheter-based coronary intervention to the non-LAD vessels for the treatment of multivessel disease. The main indications for hybrid coronary revascularization are (i) to achieve complete revascularization in patients who cannot undergo conventional CABG, (ii) to treat patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease with a non-LAD vessel as the culprit lesion that needs revascularization and (iii) in highly select patients with multivessel disease with complex LAD lesions and simple percutaneous coronary intervention targets for all other vessels. Hybrid coronary revascularization patients receive a left internal mammary artery graft to the LAD artery through a minimal incision along with percutaneous coronary intervention to the remaining diseased coronary vessels using latest generation drug-eluting stents. A collaborative environment with a dedicated heart team is the optimal platform to perform such interventions, which aim to improve the quality and outcome of myocardial revascularization. This position paper analyses the rationale of hybrid coronary revascularization and the currently available evidence on the various techniques and delves into the sequence of the interventions and pharmacological management during and after the procedure., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This multi-institutional study compares the long-term outcome of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis and an intermediate risk profile undergoing sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation., Methods: From 2008 to 2015, 967 elderly patients (>75 years) with intermediate risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4%-8%) and isolated aortic stenosis were included in the study (sutureless valve = 481; transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 486). After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups of 291 patients were obtained. Transcatheter valves implanted in patients were the CoreValve (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn), Edwards SAPIEN-XT (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, Calif), and Acurate-TA (Symetis, Lausanne, Switzerland). Primary end points included all-cause death at 30 days and 5 years. Secondary end points included early and 5-year incidence of composite adverse events (major adverse cardiovascular events: all-cause death, stroke, pacemaker implant, myocardial infarction, paravalvular leak ≥II, and reoperation)., Results: After matching, there were no substantial differences between groups. The 30-day mortality was significantly lower in the sutureless valve group (sutureless valve = 1.7% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 5.5%; P = .024) and the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (sutureless valve = 5.5% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 10.7%, P = .032). Stroke/transient ischemic attack cumulative incidence at 5 years was 1.4% in the sutureless valve group and 5.3% in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation group (P = .010). The incidence of perivalvular leak grade II or greater was 1.3% in the sutureless valve group and 9.8% in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation group (P < .001). At 60 months follow-up, the all-cause death rate was lower in the sutureless valve group than in the transcatheter aortic valve implantation group (sutureless valve = 16.1% ± 4.1% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 28.9% ± 5.3%, P = .006), and the major adverse cardiovascular event rate was lower in the sutureless valve group (sutureless valve = 23.5% ± 4.1% vs transcatheter aortic valve implantation = 39.0% ± 5.6%, P = .002). Multivariable Cox regression identified transcatheter aortic valve implantation as an independent predictor for 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.86; confidence interval, 1.09-3.18; P = .022) (hazard ratio, 1.73; confidence interval, 1.13-2.73; P = .010)., Conclusions: Sutureless valves improved the outcomes of aortic stenosis in elderly patients with an intermediate risk profile when compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in this subset population should be evaluated in further controlled randomized trials with sutureless valve use in a comparative cohort., (Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology This article has been co-published with permission in European Heart Journal (published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology) and European Journal of Heart Failure (published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology).)

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures., Methods: Forty departments shared their data on acute and elective thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures between January and May 2020 and January and May 2019 in Europe, Asia and the USA. Admission rates as well as delay from onset of symptoms to referral were compared., Results: No differences in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic procedures were observed between 2020 and the reference period in 2019 [incidence rates ratio (IRR): 0.96, confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.04; P = 0.39]. Also, no difference in the time interval from acute onset of symptoms to referral was recorded (<12 h 32% vs > 12 h 68% in 2020, < 12 h 34% vs > 12 h 66% in 2019 P = 0.29). Conversely, a decline of 35% in elective procedures was seen (IRR: 0.81, CI 0.76-0.87; P < 0.001) with substantial differences between countries and the most pronounced decline in Italy (-40%, P < 0.001). Interestingly, in Switzerland, an increase in the number of elective cases was observed (+35%, P = 0.02)., Conclusions: There was no change in the number of acute thoracic and abdominal aortic cases and procedures during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas the case load of elective operations and procedures decreased significantly. Patients with acute aortic syndromes presented despite COVID-19 and were managed according to current guidelines. Further analysis is required to prove that deferral of elective cases had no impact on premature mortality., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Sutureless valves became an alternative to standard bioprostheses, allowing surgeons to significantly reduce cross-clamping and extracorporeal circulation times, with a potential positive impact on major postoperative complications. The aim of this European multicentre study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sutureless valves in patients with an intermediate-risk profile undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR)., Methods: We investigated early and mid-term outcomes of 518 elderly patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate-risk profile (mean STS Score 6.1 ± 2%) undergoing AVR with sutureless aortic valve. Primary endpoints were 30-day mortality and freedom from all-cause death at follow-up. The secondary endpoint was survival freedom from MACCEs [all-cause death, stroke/transitory ischemic attack (TIA), bleeding, myocardial infarction, aortic regurgitation Grade II, endocarditis, reintervention and pacemaker implant; VARC 1--2 criteria]., Results: Sutureless valve implantation was successfully performed in 508 patients, with a procedural success rate of 98.1% (508/518) as per VARC criteria. Concomitant myocardial revascularization [coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] was performed in 74 out of 518 patients (14.3%). In-hospital mortality was 1.9% (10/518). Postoperative complications included revision for bleeding (23/518; 4.4%), prolonged intubation more than 48h (4/518; 0.7%), acute renal failure (14/518; 2.7%), stroke/TIA (11/518; 2.1%), pacemaker implantation (26/518; 5.1%) and aortic regurgitation more than Grade II (7/518; 1.4%). At 48-month follow-up, Kaplan-Meier overall survival and freedom from MACCEs in patients receiving isolated AVR were 83.7% [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 81.1-86.3] and 78.4% (95% CI: 75.5-81.4), respectively, while in patients with concomitant CABG, Kaplan-Meier overall survival and freedom from MACCEs were 82.3% (95% CI: 73.3-91.3) and 79.1% (95% CI: 69.9-88.3), respectively., Conclusion: The use of sutureless aortic valves in elderly patients with an intermediate-risk profile provided excellent early and mid-term outcomes, providing a reliable tool in patients undergoing surgical AVR in this specific subset of population. These preliminary data need to be investigated with a TAVI control-group in further studies., (Copyright © 2020 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.)

Background:  The Freedom SOLO (FS) stentless bovine-pericardial prosthesis with a supra-annular implantation technique can be a viable option for patients with endocarditic annular destruction. We assessed early- and long-term outcomes following the use of this prosthesis in extensive aortic valve endocarditis., Methods:  From 2006 to 2016, 59 patients with extensive aortic endocarditis underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with FS (cumulative follow-up 263 patients-years) in three European centers; all patients presented annular tissue infection, while 54.3% of patients had annular abscess., Results:  Mean age was 66 ± 11 years and mean EuroSCORE I was 30.3% (standard deviation: 24.1%). In our series, 30.5% of patients had prosthetic valve endocarditis. Early mortality was 15.2% (nine patients). Estimated overall survival at 5 and 10 years was 68.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62.8-75.0%) and 59.1% (95% CI: 66.8-81.2%), respectively. At 10-year survival, freedom from valve-related death was 83.7% (95% CI: 80.9-86.5%). No structural valve deterioration was reported in this series. Five patients (8.5%) had recurrent endocarditis during follow-up and two of them underwent reoperation. Survival freedom from reoperation and endocarditis at 10-year follow-up was 88.0% (CI: 80.4-95.6%) and 86.7% (CI: 80.5-92.9%), respectively., Conclusion:  FS stentless bioprosthesis is a valuable and simple option to achieve AVR in patients with extensive aortic annulus endocarditis. Although in this group of complex patients, early mortality remains considerably high, late survival outcomes are comparable to the more technically demanding homografts and conventional stentless bioprostheses, with low rates of endocarditis recurrence., Competing Interests: Repossini, MD, Fischlein, MD, Grubitsch, MD, and Muneretto, MD, are consultant for Livanova Company. Santarpino, MD, is a consultant for Sorin Italia., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: Stentless aortic valves have been developed to overcome obstructive limitations associated with stented bioprostheses. The aim of the current multi-institutional study was to compare hemodynamics of transcatheter (TAVR) and the Freedom SOLO Stentless (FS) valve in an intermediate risk population undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement., Methods: From 2010 to 2014, 420 consecutive patients underwent isolated surgical aortic valve replacement with FS and 375 patients underwent TAVR. Only patients with intermediate operative risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 4-10) and small aortic annulus (≤23 mm) were included. After a propensity matched analysis 142 patients in each group were selected. Thirty-day postoperative clinical and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated., Results: Mean prosthesis diameter was 22.2 ± 0.9 mm for FS and 22.4 ± 1.0 mm for TAVR. In-hospital mortality was 2.1% for FS and 6.3% for TAVR (P = .02). Postoperative FS peak gradients were 19.1 ± 9.6 mm Hg (mean 10.8 ± 5.9 mm Hg); TAVR peak gradients were 20.2 ± 9.5 mm Hg (mean 10.7 ± 6.9 mm Hg) P = .57 (P = .88). Postoperative effective orifice area was 1.93 ± 0.52 cm 2 for FS and 1.83 ± 0.3 cm 2 for TAVR (P = .65). There was no prostheses-patient mismatch in either group. Postoperative grade 2-3 paravalvular leak was present in 3.5% for TAVR and 0.7% for FS. Postoperative permanent pacemaker implant rate was 12% for TAVR and only 1 case (0.7%) in the FS group (P < .001)., Conclusions: In patients with small aortic annulus and intermediate risk, both FS and TAVR demonstrated similar excellent hemodynamic performance. TAVR demonstrated greater mortality and rates of pacemaker insertion. Further studies are warranted to validate TAVR indications in this subset of patients., (Copyright © 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Freedom Solo (FS) bovine pericardial valve (Sorin Group, Milan, Italy) is a stentless bioprosthesis that was introduced in 2004 and approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2014. No long-term follow-up series are available to date. We report the multicenter experience of 4 European institutions that began implanting FS extensively from its introduction, providing the largest series with long-term follow-up., Methods: From 2004 to 2009, 565 patients (242 women [42.8%]; mean age, 74.6 ± 8.3 years) underwent isolated (n = 350) or combined (n = 215) aortic valve replacement with the FS. Mean follow-up, including clinical and strict echocardiographic evaluation, was 6.9 ± 3.7 years (maximum, 11.8 years; cumulative 2,965 patient-years). Primary end point was freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD), and secondary end points were freedom from reoperation and overall survival., Results: Mean logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I was 10.3% ± 6.7%. Overall 30-day mortality was 3.7%, and no deaths were valve related. There was no severe prostheses-patient mismatch, and moderate prostheses-patient mismatch occurred only in 1 patient (0.17%). Twenty-eight patients (5.2%) underwent reoperation (20 surgical replacements, 8 transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve replacements) due to endocarditis in 9, blunt trauma in 1, and SVD in 18. SVD was reported in 5 other patients alive at time of censoring. Freedom from SVD and reoperation was 90.8% (95% confidence interval, 89.1% to 92.5%) and 87.3% (95% confidence interval, 85.6% to 89.0%), respectively, at 10 years of follow-up, and the overall actuarial survival was 56.4% (95% confidence interval, 53.3% to 59.5%)., Conclusions: The FS valve provided excellent long-term durability and hemodynamic performance in this large, multicenter European experience. Moreover, the FS, given the low rate of SVD, along with a simple implantability, proved to be a reliable bioprosthesis in the aortic position as a valid alternative to stented bioprostheses., (Copyright © 2016 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)