Evangelos Leontiadis

Background and Objectives: The treatment of choice for aortic valve stenosis in patients with low and intermediate risk is still debated. In this study, we compared the outcomes of low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients who underwent surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, 326 consecutive patients with severe AS underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), while 341 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The two populations were propensity score matched by age, gender and Euroscore II. The survival rate of patients during median 5-year follow-up between SAVR and TAVI patients was evaluated. Results: After propensity score matching, 94 pairs of patients were compared and the mean standard deviation age of patients, sex (female) and Euroscore II were 77.5 (6.6) versus 76.6 (6.5) years, 51.1% versus 51.1% and 3.3 (1.88)% versus 3.0 (1,84)%, respectively. Permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in transcatheter group (21.3% versus 1.1%, p < 0.001). No difference in length of ICU and in-hospital stay was observed, p = 0.08 and p = 0.12, respectively. During follow-up the presence of more than moderate insufficiency of the prosthetic valve postoperatively was significantly less frequent in the surgical versus transcatheter (0% versus 14.3%). Survival rates over 1, 3 and 5 years did not differ in surgical versus transcatheter group (93.6%, 81.9% and 62.8% versus 86.2%, 69.1% and 59.6%, respectively (p = 0.16)). Conclusions: Short- and long-term survival rates were similar in patients who underwent transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement, whereas SAVR showed superior results concerning the postoperative detection of residual regurgitation and need for PPM. It is extremely important to personalize the choice of treatment according to patients’ age, clinical status and life expectancy.

Introduction: The perioperative management of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) undergoing cardiac surgery is challenging, mainly due to the potential risk of right ventricular failure (RVF). Levosimendan is a calcium-sensitizing agent that has primarily been used in the treatment of decompensated heart failure. However, recently levosimendan has been shown to be an effective and safe therapeutic strategy for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension and PH associated with left heart disease. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential utility of the preemptive administration of levosimendan in cardiac surgical patients with preexisting PH and to compare its effectiveness with milrinone, which represents an already established therapeutic option in the management of PH during cardiac surgery. Materials and Methods: In this study, 40 adult cardiac surgical patients with PH were randomly assigned to receive either levosimendan intravenously or milrinone via inhalation in a double-blind fashion prior to a cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters were recorded and evaluated before and after the administration of the drugs. Results and Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated that both levosimendan and milrinone administered before CPB in cardiac surgical patients with PH may offer protective benefits, reducing pulmonary artery pressure and preventing the exacerbation of PH and RVF. Pulmonary vasodilation attributed to levosimendan is of longer duration and greater magnitude compared to pulmonary vasodilation afforded by milrinone.

Heart Failure is a chronic and progressively deteriorating syndrome that has reached epidemic proportions worldwide. Improved outcomes have been achieved with novel drugs and devices. However, the number of patients refractory to conventional medical therapy is growing. These advanced heart failure patients suffer from severe symptoms and frequent hospitalizations and have a dismal prognosis, with a significant socioeconomic burden in health care systems. Patients in this group may be eligible for advanced heart failure therapies, including heart transplantation and chronic mechanical circulatory support with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Heart transplantation remains the treatment of choice for eligible candidates, but the number of transplants worldwide has reached a plateau and is limited by the shortage of donor organs and prolonged wait times. Therefore, LVADs have emerged as an effective and durable form of therapy, and they are currently being used as a bridge to heart transplant, destination lifetime therapy, and cardiac recovery in selected patients. Although this field is evolving rapidly, LVADs are not free of complications, making appropriate patient selection and management by experienced centers imperative for successful therapy. Here, we review current LVAD technology, indications for durable MCS therapy, and strategies for timely referral to advanced heart failure centers before irreversible end-organ abnormalities.

Introduction: The perioperative management of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) undergoing cardiac surgery represents one of the most challenging clinical scenarios. This fact mainly depends on the relationship existing between PH and right ventricular failure (RVF). Levosimendan (LS) is an inodilator that might be an effective agent in the treatment of PH and RVF. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) on the therapeutic drug monitoring of LS and to evaluate the effect of preemptive administration of LS on perioperative hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters in cardiac surgical patients with preexisting PH. Materials and Methods: In this study, LS was administered in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery before CPB in order to prevent exacerbation of preexisting PH and subsequent right ventricular dysfunction. Thirty cardiac surgical patients with preoperatively confirmed PH were randomized to receive either 6 μg/kg or 12 μg/kg of LS after the induction of anesthesia. The plasma concentration of LS was measured after CPB. In this study, a low sample volume was used combined with a simple sample preparation protocol. The plasma sample was extracted by protein precipitation and evaporated; then, the analyte was reconstituted and detected using specific and sensitive bioanalytical liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methodology. The clinical, hemodynamic, and echocardiographic parameters were registered and evaluated before and after the administration of the drug. Results: A fast bioanalytical LC-MS/MS methodology (a run time of 5.5 min) was developed for the simultaneous determination of LS and OR-1896, its main metabolite in human plasma. The LC-MS/MS method was linear over a range of 0.1–50 ng/mL for LS and 1–50 ng/mL for its metabolite OR-1896. Measured plasma concentrations of LS were inversely related to the duration of CPB. LS administration before CPB during cardiac surgery was effective in reducing pulmonary artery pressure and improving hemodynamic parameters after CPB, with a more pronounced and durable effect of the drug at the dose of 12 μg/kg. Additionally, administration of LS at a dose of 12 μg/kg in cardiac surgical patients with PH before CPB improved right ventricular function. Conclusion: LS administration decreases pulmonary artery pressure and may improve right ventricular function in patients with PH undergoing cardiac surgery.