Pietro Giorgio Malvindi

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting improves short-term outcomes in high-risk patients compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and risks of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and to investigate the relationship between outcomes and patient risk profile. METHODS PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and major conference proceedings databases were searched for RCTs comparing OPCAB and CABG and reporting short-term (≤ 30 days) outcomes. Endpoints assessed were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebral stroke. RESULTS The meta-analysis included 100 studies, with a total of 19,192 subjects. There was no difference between the 2 techniques with respect to all-cause mortality and MI (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.09; P = .25; I(2) = 0% and OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.05; P = .19; I(2) = 0%, respectively). OPCAB was associated with a significant 28% reduction in the odds of cerebral stroke (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .009; I(2) = 0%). A significant relationship between patient risk profile and benefits from OPCAB was found in terms of all-cause mortality (P < .01), MI (P < .01), and cerebral stroke (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS OPCAB is associated with a significant reduction in the odds of cerebral stroke compared with conventional CABG. In addition, benefits of OPCAB in terms of death, MI, and cerebral stroke are significantly related to patient risk profile, suggesting that OPCAB should be strongly considered in high-risk patients.

Reoperations for Aortic False Aneurysms After Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND Aortic false aneurysm is a rare complication after cardiac surgery. Aortic dissection, infection, arterial wall degeneration, and poor surgical technique are recognized as risk factors for the occurrence of postsurgical false aneurysm. Despite some recent reports about percutaneous false aneurysm exclusion, a complex surgical reoperation is needed in most of the cases. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed our experience in 43 patients who received a reoperation for postsurgical aortic false aneurysm in the last 14 years. Thirty-three patients were male. The mean age was 60 ± 12 years. Most of the patients received prior aortic surgery on the aortic root, the ascending aorta, the aortic arch, and the descending thoracic aorta (38 patients). False aneurysm was diagnosed during follow-up evaluation in the absence of any symptoms in 23 cases. Univariate and multivariate analyses on 18 perioperative variables were performed. RESULTS In-hospital mortality was 6.9% (3 patients). The postoperative course was complicated in 17 cases (39%). At multivariate analysis, a preoperative history of coronary artery disease and postoperative sepsis were independent risk factors for hospital mortality. Survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years were 94%, 79%, and 68%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation was 86% at 1 year and 72% at 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS Despite a high postoperative complication rate, a reoperation for postsurgical aortic false aneurysm can be performed with acceptable mortality and good mid-term and long-term outcomes.

Reoperation After Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair: A Series of 104 Patients

BACKGROUND Our objective was to analyze the causes, timing, and results of reoperation after primary repair for acute type A dissection. METHODS One hundred and four consecutive patients underwent a reoperation after previous type A aortic dissection repair (1972 to 2008). Supracoronary ascending aorta replacement (SCAR) was commonly performed during primary repair and it was associated with aortic root replacement in 13 cases and with hemiarch replacement in 26 patients. Progression of aortic dilatation was seen in 91 patients (87%), aortic regurgitation in 21 (20%), and false aneurysm in 15 patients (14%). A redo Bentall procedure was performed in 34 cases, arch replacement in 42 patients, and thoracoabdominal aorta replacement in 20 patients. The median follow-up was 6.5 years (range 0.3 to 23.8 years). RESULTS The in-hospital mortality after redo surgery was 7.7%. The global survival rate at 1, 5, and 10 years was 92%, 82%, and 58%, respectively. Proximal reoperations were more frequent in patients who had SCAR and flap extension into the aortic root. Patients with an unresected intimal tear and distal extension of dissection flap experienced a higher rate of aortic arch and thoracoabdominal aorta redo procedures. CONCLUSIONS More extensive acute dissection repair results in a lower rate of reoperation. Mortality for redo surgery after type A acute dissection repair is acceptable. This finding should be taken into account in proposing a widespread of more complex and extensive surgery for type A acute dissection.

Left ventricle unloading by percutaneous pigtail during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Arterial-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is more and more used as first line mechanical support in acute cardiopulmonary failure. Important pitfall of this technique is the inappropriate unloading of left ventricle (LV) in case of myocardial insufficiency, leading to pulmonary stasis and inadequate myocardial recovery. We report our experience of left side unloading by a 7-F pigtail, introduced in the LV through the aortic valve, connected to the venous drainage. Echographic guidance is sufficient to pigtail positioning and follow-up monitoring avoiding catheterization laboratory transport. With this approach we were able to support three different patients, resolving LV distension and preventing lung congestion, without major complication.

D-dimers are not always elevated in patients with acute aortic dissection.

In patients with acute aortic dissection, an early diagnosis is essential to anticipate aortic rupture, cardiac tamponade, organ ischemia and improve surgical results. A specific blood laboratory marker able to rule out the presence of aortic dissection has not been identified yet. Recently, several studies suggested using D-dimers as a negative predicting test to rule out diagnosis of acute aortic dissection in patients presenting with chest pain. In 61 patients with confirmed aortic dissection, preoperative D-dimers were assayed and correlated with time from symptom onset and extension of the false lumen dissection (according with De Bakey classification). Abnormal D-dimers values were considered those being greater than 400 μg/l. D-dimers values were above 400 μg/l in 50 patients (82%) and below 400 μg/l in 11 patients (18%). There was no correlation between preoperative D-dimers values and time from symptoms onset (r = −0.232; P = 0.1). We found that D-dimers are not always elevated in patients presenting with acute aortic dissection. Given the potential devastating effects of denying the diagnosis of acute aortic dissection with consequent delay of adequate treatment, a word of caution regarding the negative predictive value of D-dimer test in the diagnosis of aortic dissection seems warranted.

Reoperations on the Aortic Root: Experience in 46 Patients

BACKGROUND The increasing use of biologic conduits and the advances in reparative aortic root procedures has increased the number of patients who may require reoperation on the aortic root. Although the primary operation yields excellent results with a low risk for morbidity and mortality, reoperation on the aortic root is still challenging. METHODS We reviewed retrospectively our experience in 46 patients (38 men; mean age, 57 +/- 11 years) who underwent aortic root reoperations in the last 7 years. Of these, 42 had received prior aortic root replacement. The indications for reoperation included prosthesis infection in 16, false aneurysm in 16, and degenerative or postdissection aneurysm and valve prosthesis failure. Aortic root re-replacement was performed in 39 patients (85%) and closure of false aneurysm in 7. Univariate and multivariate analysis on 22 perioperative variables were performed. RESULTS In-hospital mortality was 6.5% (3 patients). The postoperative course was complicated in 19 (41%). At multivariate analysis, perioperative myocardial infarction was a risk factor for hospital mortality (2 patients). Survival was 88% at 1 year and 74% at 5 years. No differences were found in survival according to redo indication. Freedom from reoperation on the aortic root was 100% at 1 year and 90% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS Reoperation on the aortic root can be performed with acceptable mortality and good midterm and long-term outcome; however, the postoperative complication rate is still high.

Cerebrovascular Events After No-Touch Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting, Conventional Side-Clamp Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass, and Proximal Anastomotic Devices: A Meta-Analysis.

Background Off‐pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) has been shown to reduce the risk of neurologic complications as compared to coronary artery bypass grafting performed with cardiopulmonary bypass. Side‐clamping of the aorta while constructing proximal anastomoses, however, still carries substantial risk of cerebral embolization. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta‐analysis of studies assessing 2 clampless techniques: aortic “no‐touch” and proximal anastomosis devices (PAD) for OPCAB. Methods and Results PubMed, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were screened for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing “no‐touch” and/or PAD with side‐clamp OPCAB and reporting short‐term (≤30 days) outcomes: cerebrovascular accident and all‐cause mortality. A total of 18 studies (3 randomized controlled trials) enrolling 25 163 patients were included. Aortic “no‐touch” was associated with statistically lower risk of cerebrovascular accident as compared to side‐clamp OPCAB: risk ratio 95% CI: 0.41 (0.27–0.61); P<0.01; I2=0%. Event rates were 0.36% and 1.28% for “no‐touch” and side‐clamp OPCAB, respectively. No difference was seen between PAD and side‐clamp OPCAB: 0.71 (0.33–1.55); P=0.39; I2=39%. A trend towards increased 30‐day all‐cause mortality with PAD and no difference with “no‐touch” were observed when compared to side‐clamp OPCAB. In a subset analysis, “no‐touch” consistently reduced the risk of cerebrovascular accident regardless of patients’ baseline risk characteristics. A benefit with PAD was observed in low‐risk patients. Conclusions Aortic “no‐touch” technique was associated with nearly 60% lower risk of postoperative cerebrovascular events as compared to conventional side‐clamp OPCAB with effect consistent across patients at different risk.

Safety and efficacy of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation when compared with off-pump and conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: evidence synthesis from a comprehensive Bayesian-framework network meta-analysis of 134 randomized controlled trials involving 22 778 patients.

OBJECTIVES Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care in patients with extensive coronary artery disease. Yet the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is believed to be a major determinant of perioperative morbidity. Novel techniques are sought to tackle the shortcomings of CPB, among them off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) systems have been extensively tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To assess perioperative safety and efficacy of MECC and OPCAB when compared with conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC). METHODS Published literature and major congress proceedings were screened for RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of MECC, OPCAB and CECC. Selected end-points such as 30-day all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebral stroke, postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) and renal dysfunction were assessed in a Bayesian-framework network meta-analysis. RESULTS A total of 134 studies with 22 778 patients were included. When compared with CECC, both OPCAB and MECC significantly reduced 30-day all-cause mortality [odds ratios (95% credible intervals): 0.75 (0.51-0.99) and 0.46 (0.22-0.91)], respectively. No differences in respect to MI were demonstrated with either strategy. OPCAB, when compared with CECC, reduced the odds of cerebral stroke [0.57 (0.34-0.80)]; 60% reduction was observed with MECC when compared with CECC [0.40 (0.19-0.78)]. Both OPCAB and MECC reduced the odds of POAF [0.66 (0.48-0.90) and 0.62 (0.35-0.98), respectively] when compared with CECC. OPCAB conferred over 30% reduction of renal dysfunction when compared with CECC [0.69 (0.46-0.92)]. MECC reduced these odds by more than 50% [0.47 (0.24-0.89)]. Ranking of treatments emerging from the probability analysis (highest to lowest SUCRA values) was MECC followed by OPCAB and CECC. CONCLUSIONS MECC and OPCAB both improve perioperative outcomes following coronary bypass surgery when compared with conventional CABG performed with extracorporeal circulation. MECC may represent an attractive compromise between OPCAB and CECC.

Aortic Valve Replacement for Paraprosthetic Leak After Transcatheter Implantation

Abstract  Conversion to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) has been described as a complication following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. This complication occurs in up to 8% of cases and, to the best of our knowledge, preoperative data and surgical outcomes of such patients have not been properly evaluated. Mild paraprosthetic regurgitation is commonly observed after transcatheter aortic valve implantation and usually leads to a benign clinical course. Unequal distribution of valve calcifications is described as a potential mechanism. We report a case of a perioperative paraprosthetic regurgitation that underwent successful urgent surgical AVR and review the incidence and results of paraprosthetic leaks following transcatheter implantation. (J Card Surg 2012;27:47–51)

6 Months of “Temporary” Support by Levitronix Left Ventricular Assist Device

An otherwise healthy 47-year-old man presented to the emergency department in cardiogenic shock after suffering a massive myocardial infarction due to left main occlusion. He was initially supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and subsequently was converted to paracorporeal support with a Levitronix left ventricular assist device. He experienced multiple postoperative complications including renal failure, respiratory failure, retroperitoneal hematoma requiring suspension of anticoagulation, and fungal bloodstream infection precluding transition to an implantable device. He was reconditioned and successfully underwent orthotopic heart transplant 183 days after presentation. A discussion of the relevant issues is included.