Search

Background: Aortic valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) David procedure has not been routinely performed via minimally invasive access due to its complexity. Methods: We compared our results for mini-VSARR to sternotomy-VSARR from another excellence center. Results: Eighty-four patients, 62 in the sternotomy-VSARR group and 22 in the mini-VSARR group, were included. A baseline, the aneurysm dimensions were higher in the mini-VSARR group. Propensity matching resulted in 17 pairs with comparable characteristics. Aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the mini-VSARR group, by 60 and 20 min, respectively (p < 0.001). In-hospital outcomes were comparable between the groups. Drainage volumes were numerically lower, and hospital length of stay was, on average, 3 days shorter (p < 0.001) in the mini-VSARR group. At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there was no difference in mortality (p = 0.230). Survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 100%, 100%, and 95% and 95%, 87% and 84% in the mini-VSARR and sternotomy-VSARR groups, respectively. No repeat interventions on the aortic valve were documented. Echocardiographic follow-up was complete in 91% with excellent durability of repair regardless of the approach: no cases of moderate/severe aortic regurgitation were reported in the mini-VSARR group. Conclusions: The favorable outcomes, reduced drainage, and shorter hospital stays associated with the mini-sternotomy approach underscore its potential advantages expanding beyond cosmetic outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION    Numerous studies described the effectiveness and safety of antazoline in pharmacological cardioversion of short‑duration atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there are no data on the comparison of antazoline and antiarrhythmic drugs listed in clinical guidelines. OBJECTIVES    The aim of the study was to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of antazoline‑based and propafenone‑based strategies in pharmacological cardioversion of short‑duration AF performed in our emergency department. PATIENTS AND METHODS    We conducted a retrospective case‑control study based on the analysis of medical records of patients undergoing pharmacological cardioversion of short‑duration AF with intravenous antazoline or propafenone at our department in the years 2008-2012. The primary endpoint was the successful cardioversion of AF. The primary safety endpoint was hospitalization due to the adverse effects of the treatment. RESULTS    We analyzed 432 cases of cardioversion. The mean age of patients was 68.9 ±9.8 years; 65% of the patients were male; 90% of the patients had a history of AF. Antazoline was administered 334 times and propafenone-98 times. The mean dose of antazoline was 172 ±65 mg, while all patients in the propafenone group received the drug at a fixed dose of 70 mg (1 vial). Cardioversion with antazoline was successful in 239 cases (71.6%) and with propafenone-in 54 patients (55.1%) (relative risk [RR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.57). The rate of hospitalization due to the adverse effects of the treatment were low and similar between the study groups: 10 (3.0%) for antazoline and 4 (4.1%) for propafenone (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.23-2.27). CONCLUSIONS    The antazoline‑based strategy was more effective and safer in comparison with propafenone‑based strategy in the pharmacological cardioversion of short‑duration AF in our emergency department.