Marzia Leacche

The advantages of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) are well documented, but whether the benefits extend to subsequent reoperative aortic valve surgery and beyond is unknown. The study aim was to compare in-hospital outcomes and long-term survival following reoperative AVR between patients who had previous undergone either minimally invasive AVR (mini-AVR) or full sternotomy AVR (sAVR). All reoperative, isolated AVRs performed between July 1997 and September 2013 at the authors' institution, with or without non-complex aortic surgery, were identified. Patients were excluded if AVR was not isolated, had occurred prior to July 1997, or if the initial AVR was performed before the patient was aged 18 years. All reoperations were performed through a full sternotomy. The main outcomes of interest were operative results and long-term survival. A total of 101 patients was identified, of which 34 had undergone previous mini-AVR and 67 previous sAVR. The time from the previous AVR was similar in both groups (median 7.6 years overall). Of previous valve implants, 57 were bioprostheses and 44 mechanical; structural valve degeneration was the most common indication for surgery (43/101). Mini-AVR and sAVR patients did not differ significantly with regards to patient demographics and preoperative risk factors. A strong trend towards shorter skin-to-skin operative times was observed for mini-AVR (330 min versus 356 min; p = 0.053). Postoperatively, mini-AVR patients had a shorter ventilation time (5.7 h versus 8.4 h; p = 0.005), intensive care unit stay (37 h versus 63 h; p ≤ 0.001) and hospital length of stay (6.5 days versus 8.0 days; p = 0.038). There was one operative mortality in the sAVR, and none in the mini-AVR group. Mid-term survival at one and five years for mini-AVR was 100% (95% CI 100-100) and 100% (95% CI 100-100), and for sAVR was 93.9% (95% CI 88.2-99.7) and 85.0% (95% CI 75.1-94.9), respectively (p = 0.041). Mini-AVR confers benefits during subsequent reoperative AVR, with shorter hospital stays and improved long-term survival. These findings suggest that mini-AVR should be considered for patients at risk for aortic valve reoperation, and describes a previously unreported advantage of this well-established technique.

Hybrid coronary revascularization combines coronary artery bypass surgery with percutaneous coronary intervention techniques to treat coronary artery disease. The potential benefits of such a technique are to offer the patients the best available treatments for coronary artery disease while minimizing the risks of the surgery. Hybrid coronary revascularization has resulted in the establishment of new 'hybrid operating suites', which incorporate and integrate the capabilities of a cardiac surgery operating room with that of an interventional cardiology laboratory. Hybrid coronary revascularization has greatly augmented teamwork and cooperation between both fields and has demonstrated encouraging as well as good initial outcomes.

The study aim was to determine the safety and benefits of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery without aortic cross-clamping for mitral valve surgery after previous cardiac surgery. Between January 2006 and August 2008, a total of 90 consecutive patients (38 females, 52 males; mean age 66 +/- 9 years) underwent minimally invasive mitral valve surgery after having undergone previous cardiac surgery. Of these patients, 80 (89%) underwent mitral valve replacement and 10 (11%) mitral valve repair utilizing a small (5 cm) right lateral thoracotomy along the 4th or 5th intercostal space under fibrillatory arrest (mean temperature 28 +/- 2 degrees C). The predicted mortality, calculated using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) algorithm, was compared to the observed mortality. The mean ejection fraction was 45 +/- 13%, mean NYHA class 3 +/- 1, while 66 patients (73%) had previous coronary artery bypass grafting and 37 (41%) had previous valve surgery. Twenty-six patients (29%) underwent non-elective surgery. Cardiopulmonary bypass was instituted through axillary (n = 19), femoral (n = 70) or direct use aortic (n = 1) cannulation. Operative mortality was 2% (2/90), lower than the STS-predicted mortality of 7%. Three patients (3%) developed acute renal failure postoperatively, one patient (1%) required new-onset hemodialysis, and one (1%) developed postoperative stroke. No patients developed postoperative myocardial infarction. The mean postoperative packed red blood cell transfusion requirement at 48 h was 2 +/- 3 units. Minimally invasive right thoracotomy without aortic cross-clamping is an excellent alternative to conventional redo-sternotomy for reoperative mitral valve surgery. The present study confirmed that this technique is safe and effective in reducing operative mortality in high-risk patients undergoing reoperative cardiac surgery.