Omar A. Jarral

Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in patients with concomitant mitral regurgitation: should the mitral valve be dealt with?

Co-existent mitral regurgitation may adversely influence both morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Whilst it is accepted that concomitant mitral intervention is required in severe, symptomatic mitral regurgitation, in cases of mild-moderate non-structural mitral regurgitation, improvement may be seen following aortic valve replacement alone, avoiding the increased risk of double-valve surgery. The exact benefit of such a conservative approach is, however, yet to be adequately quantified. We performed a systematic literature review identifying 17 studies incorporating 3053 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with co-existing mitral regurgitation. These were meta-analysed using random effects modelling. Heterogeneity and subgroup analysis were assessed. Primary end points were change in mitral regurgitation severity and 30-day, 3-, 5- and 10-year mortality. Secondary end points were end-organ dysfunction (neurovascular, renal and respiratory), and the extent of ventricular remodelling following aortic valve replacement. Our results revealed improvement in the severity of mitral regurgitation following aortic valve replacement in 55.5% of patients, whereas 37.7% remained unchanged, and 6.8% worsened. No significant difference was seen between overall data and either the functional or moderate subgroups. The overall 30-day mortality following aortic valve replacement was 5%. This was significantly higher in moderate-severe mitral regurgitation than nil-mild mitral regurgitation both overall (p=0.002) and in the functional subgroup (p=0.004). Improved long-term survival was seen at 3, 5 and 10 years in nil-mild mitral regurgitation when compared with moderate-severe mitral regurgitation in all groups (overall p<0.0001, p<0.00001 and p=0.02, respectively). The relative risk of respiratory, renal and neurovascular complications were 7%, 6% and 4%, respectively. Reverse remodelling was demonstrated by a significant reduction in left-ventricular end-diastolic diameter and left-ventricular mass (p=0.0007 and 0.01, respectively), without significant heterogeneity. No significant change was seen in left-ventricular end-systolic diameter (p=0.10), septal thickness (p=0.17) or left atrial area (p=0.23). We conclude that despite reverse remodelling, concomitant moderate-severe mitral regurgitation adversely affects both early and late mortality following aortic valve replacement. Concomitant mitral intervention should therefore be considered in the presence of moderate mitral regurgitation, independent of the aetiology.

Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND In symptomatic multivessel disease with left ventricular dysfunction, coronary artery bypass surgery (CAB) is the conventional approach. This study assesses outcomes in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass with (on-pump; ONCAB) and without cardiopulmonary bypass (off-pump; OPCAB). METHODS A systematic literature search was performed and data were extracted for the following outcomes of interest: 30-day, midterm, and late-term mortality, myocardial infarction, and completeness of revascularization. Random effects meta-analysis was used to aggregate the data. Sensitivity, heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed. RESULTS Analysis of 23 nonrandomized studies revealed 7,759 patients, of whom 2,822 received OPCAB and 4,937 underwent ONCAB. Early mortality was significantly lower in the OPCAB group (odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.81) with no significant heterogeneity between the studies. This finding was supported by subgroup analysis that included assessment of studies only including patients with poor left ventricular function. Based on 13 studies, there was no difference in mortality at the midterm, and based on 4 studies there was no significant difference when comparing late-term mortality. Analysis of four studies revealed the OPCAB group was associated with significantly less complete revascularization. CONCLUSIONS Off-pump CAB may be associated with lower incidence of early mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function, although the method of handling the conversion-related mortality in each study is uncertain and may challenge these results. Incomplete revascularization provided by the OPCAB group occurred more often, although its impact was not reflected in the clinical outcomes but may explain why the early advantage in mortality was not continued to the late term.

How should perineal wounds be closed following abdominoperineal resection in patients post radiotherapy--primary closure or flap repair? Best evidence topic (BET).

This best evidence topic was investigated according to a described protocol. The question posed was: should the irradiated perineal wound following abdominoperineal resection (APR) be closed with primary repair or a myocutaneous flap. Using the reported search 364 papers were found of which eight represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The conclusion drawn is that there is some limited evidence for recommending flap closure in abdominoperineal resection post radiotherapy. The best evidence available was from a systematic review of cohort studies and case series. Although no meta-analysis was performed, overall wound healing was improved using flap closure with a low frequency of flap necrosis. Other studies providing evidence were case-control series or cohort studies. Three papers prospectively compared vertical rectus abdominus muscle (VRAM) flap with primary closure; two of which demonstrated statistically significant improvement in complication rates with flap closure. Two retrospective case control series showed significant improvement in major wound complication rates in the flap group. Two studies retrospectively compared gracilis flap repair with primary closure and showed significantly lower incidence of major perineal complications. Most studies suffered from significant limitations, small sample sizes and no direct comparisons between matched groups with respect to type of anatomic flap, wound size, tumour recurrence or radiation dose. Whilst there is evidence that myocutaneous flap closure following APR in radiotherapy patients can reduce wound related complications, prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Should surgeons scrub with chlorhexidine or iodine prior to surgery

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether chlorhexidine gluconate is equivalent or superior to the use of povidone-iodine during surgical hand scrub. A total of 593 papers were found using the reported searches of which eight represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, date, journal, study type, population, main outcome measures and results are tabulated. We conclude that whilst both chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine reduce bacterial count after scrubbing, the effect of chlorhexidine is both more profound and longer lasting. The studies found analysed the difference in reduction in colony forming units or bacterial count following surgical scrub in order to conclude that chlorhexidine was superior. Four studies went further to analyse cumulative and residual activity by testing for bacterial reduction after using a scrub solution for a number of days, an area in which chlorhexidine showed consistent advantages over povidone-iodine. These findings are given more credibility by the clinical finding of a recent meta-analysis of over 5000 patients in which chlorhexidine as an antiseptic skin preparation was associated with significantly reduced surgical site infection (SSI) in clean-contaminated surgery. Despite this, there is no evidence suggesting the use of chlorhexidine during hand scrub reduces SSI, which perhaps explains why guidelines from the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Association for Perioperative Practice do not recommend one specific antimicrobial over another for hand scrub.

Does a ‘no-touch’ technique result in better vein patency?

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether harvesting the saphenous vein (SV) as a conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using a no-touch technique would result in better patency rates. This technique involves the harvest of the SV with a pedicle of peri-vascular tissue left intact and the avoidance of distension of the vein prior to anastomosis. A total of 405 papers were found using the reported searches of which eight represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, date, journal, study type, population, main outcome measures and results are tabulated. The studies found analysed the ultrastructural and mechanical properties of the endothelium and vessel walls of the two harvesting techniques; the protein and enzymatic expression and activity observed; the early atherosclerotic changes detected; and the overall patency of the grafts during short- and long-term angiographical follow-up. Three small prospectively randomised studies compared the patency of grafts harvested using the two techniques and found significant improvements in graft patency using the no-touch harvesting technique in comparison to both the conventional technique and more importantly comparable to the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) patency. The most favourable difference was that of graft patency after 8.5 years of follow-up [90% vs. 76% (P = 0.01), LITA patency 90%], and incidence of graft stenosis [11% vs. 25% (P = 0.006)]. These findings were supported by the demonstrated improvements in the cellular integrity of the vessels and the reduction in the mechanisms leading to graft failure seen in the no-touch harvested SV grafts. These morphological and cellular analyses were carried by five small comparative studies, demonstrating improved endothelial integrity and reduced injury, decelerated atherosclerotic processes, intact adventitial collagen layers, increase in the total area of vasa vasorum, elevated endothelial nitric oxide synthase expression and activity, and increased peri-vascular leptin levels and activity. We conclude that there are clear enhancements in vessel wall properties at a cellular level and angiographical evidence of superior graft patency when the no-touch SV harvesting technique is employed.

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position.

BackgroundMinimally invasive esophageal surgery has arisen in an attempt to reduce the significant complications associated with esophagectomy. Despite proposed technical and physiological advantages, the prone position technique has not been widely adopted. This article reviews the current status of prone thoracoscopic esophagectomy.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify all published clinical studies related to prone esophagectomy. Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched using the keywords “prone,” “thoracoscopic,” and “esophagectomy” to identify articles published between January 1994 and September 2010. A critical review of these studies is given, and where appropriate the technique is compared to the more traditional minimally invasive technique utilising the left lateral decubitus position.ResultsTwelve articles reporting the outcomes following prone thoracoscopic oesophagectomy were tabulated. These studies were all non-randomised single-centre prospective or retrospective studies of which four compared the technique to traditional minimally invasive surgery. Although prone esophagectomy is demonstrated as being both feasible and safe, there is no convincing evidence that it is superior to other forms of esophageal surgery. Most authors comment that the prone position is associated with superior surgical ergonomics and theoretically offers a number of physiological benefits.ConclusionThe ideal approach within minimally invasive esophageal surgery continues to be a subject of debate since no single method has produced outstanding results. Further clinical studies are required to see whether ergonomic advantages of the prone position can be translated into improved patient outcomes.

Should thoracoscopic three-stage esophagectomy be performed in the prone or left lateral decubitus position?

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether the thoracoscopic phase of three-stage minimally-invasive esophagectomy is best performed in the prone or left lateral decubitus position. A total of 31 papers were found using the reported searches, of which seven represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, date, journal, study type, population, main outcome measures and results are tabulated. We conclude that there is no convincing evidence that prone thoracoscopic esophagectomy is superior to left lateral decubitus positioning. Four papers retrospectively compared the prone and lateral techniques, and while the authors suggested that the prone position was associated with better surgical ergonomics due to the effects of gravity pooling blood outside the operative view and the reduced need for lung retraction, outcomes were not significantly different. All four studies had significant limitations, such as small patient populations and sequential operating with the possible effect of a learning curve. Two studies compared respiratory and haemodynamic changes associated with prone positioning and suggest that it is physiologically well tolerated and may offer better oxygenation, similar to that seen in the prone positioning of acute respiratory distress patients. The evidence for prone thoracoscopic esophagectomy is currently not mature enough to reach any significant conclusions, and randomized studies are required.

Should oesophagectomy be performed with cervical or intrathoracic anastomosis

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: In [patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer] is a [cervical anastomosis or intrathoracic anastomosis] superior in terms of [post-operative outcomes]. In total, 47 papers were found suitable using the reported search, and nine of these represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, date, journal, study type, population, main outcome measures and results are tabulated. We conclude that there is no convincing evidence that cervical anastomosis is superior to intrathoracic anastomosis with respect to post-operative outcomes. Only one prospective study showed significantly increased risk of anastomotic leak with cervical anastomosis, but this study was significantly limited due to patient selection and variations in surgical approach and technique. Cervical anastomosis was also shown to increase pharyngeal reflux on pH monitoring compared with intrathoracic anastomosis, but this did not influence symptoms or development of subsequent anastomotic complications. One randomized study showed intrathoracic anastomosis significantly increased risk of respiratory complications, but in this study patient treatment was variable and study design was limited. Intrathoracic anastomosis was also shown to correlate with anastomotic stricture formation and this was attributed to increased anastomotic stapling in this patient group compared with cervical anastomosis. Post-operative pain as measured by grouped symptom scales significantly increased with intrathoracic anastomosis compared with cervical anastomosis. This did not correlate with development of other cardiorespiratory complications and the difference between the two groups resolved within 24 months. Overall, there is currently insufficient evidence to show a significant difference between cervical and intrathoracic anastomosis with respect to post-operative complications and hospital mortality. The wide variety in methodology and outcomes reinforce the need for further randomized trials to more accurately establish significant differences in outcomes.

In patients with post-sternotomy mediastinitis is vacuum-assisted closure superior to conventional therapy?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether vacuum-assisted closure therapy (VAC) is superior to conventional therapy for treating post-sternotomy mediastinitis. Altogether >261 papers were found using the reported search, of which 9 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Several studies indicate that VAC therapy is associated with shorter lengths of intensive care and in-hospital stay as well as faster rates of wound healing and fewer dressing changes. It has also been shown that VAC therapy is correlated with a statistically significant reduction in reinfection rates, particularly those that occur in the early postoperative period (at the 1-week follow-up). Patients can be discharged with the dressing in situ and managed in the community with a view to delayed closure or reconstruction. However, the studies comparing VAC with conventional therapy are all retrospective in nature and reinforce the need for randomized controlled trials in order to more accurately establish differences in outcomes between VAC and conventional therapy. Additionally, owing tło the variability of treatment protocols within the non-VAC arm, it is more challenging to draw definitive conclusions regarding the superiority of VAC therapy to every modality that is considered conventional treatment. We conclude that VAC therapy is a portable and an increasingly economical option for the treatment of post sternotomy mediastinitis. Although reductions in mortality rates were not reproduced in all studies, evidence suggests that VAC should still be considered as a first-line therapy for post-sternotomy mediastinitis and as a bridge therapy to musculocutaneous reconstruction or primary closure.

National Survey of UK Consultant Surgeons’ Opinions on Surgeon-Specific Mortality Data in Cardiothoracic Surgery

Background—In the United Kingdom, cardiothoracic surgeons have led the outcome reporting revolution seen over the last 20 years. The objective of this survey was to assess cardiothoracic surgeons’ opinions on the topic, with the aim of guiding future debate and policy making for all subspecialties. Methods and Results—A questionnaire was developed using interviews with experts in the field. In January 2015, the survey was sent out to all consultant cardiothoracic surgeons in the United Kingdom (n=361). Logistic regression, bivariate correlation, and the &khgr;2 test were used to assess whether there was a relationship between answers and demographic variables. Free-text responses were analyzed using the grounded theory approach. The response rate was 73% (n=264). The majority of respondents (58.1% oppose, 34.1% favor, and 7.8% neither) oppose the public release of surgeon-specific mortality data and associate it with several adverse consequences. These include risk-averse behavior, gaming of data, and misinterpretation of data by the public. Despite this, the majority overwhelmingly supports publication of team-based measures of outcome. The free-text responses suggest that this is because most believe that quality of care is multifactorial and not represented by an individual’s mortality rate. Conclusions—There is evident opposition to surgeon-specific mortality data among UK cardiothoracic surgeons who associate this with several unintended consequences. Policy makers should refine their strategy behind publication of surgeon-specific mortality data and possibly consider shift toward team-based results for which there will be the required support. Stakeholder feedback and inclusive strategy should be completed before introducing major initiatives to avoid unforeseen consequences and disagreements.