Oliver Reuthebuch

We present the results of a combined approach for transapical aortic valve replacement and minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (taTAVI-MIDCAB) in patients with combined aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease. Background: For patients presenting with aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease, a simultaneous procedure addressing both diseases is recommended to reduce operative risk. In high-risk patients with hostile femoral or coronary axis, taTAVI-MIDCAB can be an alternative minimally invasive approach, offering the benefits of left interior mammary artery to left anterior descending coronary artery (LIMA-LAD) grafting. Methods: From 2014 to 2022, 10 patients underwent taTAVI-MIDCAB for combined coronary and severe aortic stenosis in the hybrid operation theater at our institution. We assessed perioperative outcomes and follow-up outcomes. Results: The median age was 83 years (81 to 86). The procedure was successfully performed in all patients without conversion to sternotomy. The median length of hospital and intensive care unit stay was 9 days (7 to 16) and 2.5 days (1 to 5), respectively. The median flow over the coronary artery bypass was 31 (22 to 44) mL/min, with a pulsatility index (PI) of 2.4 (2.1 to 3.2). Mild paravalvular leak occurred in 2 patients (10%). There were no neurological events nor acute kidney injury. Pacemaker implantation was required in 1 patient (10%). Conclusions: Simultaneous surgical coronary revascularization and interventional valve implantation in the setting of a hostile femoral and coronary axis appears to be safe and beneficial.

Introduction: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a widely used, comparably efficient and safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Its utilization continues to grow, especially among younger patients. Despite improvements in durability, degeneration and subsequent re-interventions of failed prosthetic valves are still common. Even though valve-in-valve procedures have become more frequent, little is known about the trends over time or about clinical and echocardiographic long-term outcomes. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent a valve-in-valve procedure between December 2011 and December 2022 in a large tertiary university hospital were analyzed. Primary outcomes were defined as procedural and device successes as well as event-free survival. Secondary analyses between subsets of patients divided by index valve and date of procedure were performed. Results: Among 1407 procedures, 58 (4%) were valve-in-valve interventions, with an increased frequency observed over time. Overall, technical success was achieved in 88% and device success in 85% of patients. Complications were predominantly minor, with similar success rates among TAVR-in-SAVR (TiSAVR) and TAVR-in-TAVR (TiTAVR). Notably, there were significant and lasting improvements in mean echocardiographic gradients at 1 year. Event-free survival was 76% at one month and 69% at one year. Conclusions: Over the last decade, a rising trend of valve-in-valve procedures was observed. Despite an increase in procedures, complications show a contrasting decline with improved technical and device success over time. TiSAVR and TiTAVR showed comparable rates of procedural and device success as well as similar outcomes, highlighting the utility of valve-in-valve procedures in an aging population.

Due to the advent of interventional therapies for low- and intermediate-risk patients, case complexity has increased in cardiac surgery over the last decades. Despite the surgical progress achieved to keep up with the increase in the number of high-risk patients, the prevention of sternal complications remains a challenge requiring new, individualized sternal closure techniques. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility, as well as the in-hospital and long-term outcomes, of enhanced sternal closure with combined band and plate fixation using the new SternaLock® 360 (SL360) system as an alternative to sternal wiring. From 2020 to 2022, 17 patients underwent enhanced sternal closure using the SL360 at our institution. We analyzed perioperative data, as well as clinical and radiologic follow-up data. The results were as follows: In total, 82% of the patients were treated with the SL360 based on perioperative risk factors, while in 18% of cases, the SL360 was used for secondary closure due to sternal instability. No perioperative complications were observed. We obtained the follow-up data of 82% of the patients (median follow-up time: 141 (47.8 to 511.5) days), showing no surgical revision, no sternal instability, no deep wound infections, and no sternal pain at the follow-up. In one case, a superficial wound infection was treated with antibiotics. In conclusion, enhanced sternal closure with the SL360 is easy to perform, effective, and safe. This system might be considered for both primary and secondary sternal closure in patients at risk of sternal complications.