Faculty Bibliography

Historically, patients with restrictive (RCM) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) experienced longer wait-times for heart transplant (HT) and increased waitlist mortality. Recently, a new HT allocation system was implemented in the United States. We sought to determine the impact of the new HT system on RCM/HCM patients. Adult patients with RCM/HCM listed for HT between November 2015 and September 2019 were identified from the UNOS database. Patients were stratified into two groups: old system and new system. We identified 872 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of these, 608 and 264 were classified in the old and new system groups, respectively. The time in the waitlist was shorter (25 vs. 54 days, P < .001), with an increased frequency of HT in the new system (74% vs. 68%, P = .024). Patients who were transplanted in the new system had a longer ischemic time, increased use of temporary mechanical circulatory support and mechanical ventilation. There was no difference in posttransplant survival at 9 months (91.1% vs. 88.9%) (p = .4). We conclude that patients with RCM/HCM have benefited from the new HT allocation system, with increased access to HT without affecting short-term posttransplant survival.

BACKGROUND:Limited data are available regarding the outcomes of patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) who undergo durable mechanical circulatory support implantation (dMCS). We analyzed the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and risk factors for mortality in patients who were bridged with ECMO to dMCS. METHODS:Adult patients who received dMCS between January 2008 and December 2017 (n=19 824), registered in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Interagency Registry for Mechanical Assisted Circulatory Support (STS-INTERMACS) database were included. Baseline characteristics, outcomes, risk factors, and adverse events were compared between ECMO-supported patients (n=933) and INTERMACS profile 1 (IP-1) patients not supported by ECMO (n=2362). A propensity match analysis was performed. RESULTS:<0.0001) but not during the constant phase. ECMO patients had similar outcomes to non-ECMO patients when a propensity matched cohort was analyzed. CONCLUSIONS:ECMO-supported patients before dMCS have lower survival compared with other IP-1 patients. A multivariable analysis showed that ECMO is an independent risk factor of poor outcome after dMCS. However, a propensity matched analysis suggested that when important clinical variables are controlled the outcome of both groups is similar. These data support the implantation of dMCS in carefully selected ECMO patients.

BACKGROUND:Isolated tricuspid valve (ITV) operations are infrequent and the decision to operate is controversial. We report a series of ITV operations to outline the current disease status requiring this uncommon procedure with an emphasis on the results of tricuspid valve repair (TVr) versus replacement (TVR). METHODS:Using our prospective cardiac surgery database, 57 patients who underwent ITV operations between 01/02-03/14 were identified. Median follow up time was 3.5 years [interquartile range (IQR), 0.8-6.7 years]. RESULTS:23.5%, respectively, P=0.4). CONCLUSIONS:ITV surgery is associated with improved but still relatively high operative mortality. Mid-term outcomes for TVr and TVR are similar with regards to postoperative complications, survival, and freedom from recurrent tricuspid regurgitation.

BACKGROUND:Surgical dogma suggests that homografts should be used preferentially, compared with conventional xenograft or mechanical prostheses, in the setting of infective endocarditis (IE), because they have greater resistance to infection. However, comparative data that support this notion are limited. METHODS:From the prospective databases of 2 tertiary academic centers, we identified 304 consecutive adult patients (age ≥17 years) who underwent surgery for active IE involving the aortic valve (AV), in the period 2002 to 2014. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated using propensity scores and inverse-probability weighting to adjust for selection bias. RESULTS:Homografts, and xenograft and mechanical prostheses, were used in 86 (28.3%), 139 (45.7%), and 79 (26.0%) patients, respectively. Homografts were more often used in the setting of prosthetic valve endocarditis (58.1% vs 28.8%, P = .002) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus (25.6% vs 12.1%, P = .002), compared with conventional prostheses. Early mortality occurred in 17 (19.8%) in the homograft group, and 20 (9.2%) in the conventional group (P = .019). During follow-up (median: 29.4 months; interquartile-range: 4.7-72.6 months), 60 (19.7%) patients died, and 23 (7.7%) experienced reinfection, with no significant differences in survival (P = .23) or freedom from reinfection rates (P = .65) according to the types of prostheses implanted. After adjustments for baseline characteristics, using propensity-score analyses, use of a homograft did not significantly affect early death (odds ratio 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-3.40, P = .23), overall death (hazard ratio 1.10; 95% CI, 0.62-1.94, P = .75), or reinfection (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI, 0.49-2.18, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS:No significant benefit to use of homografts was demonstrable with regard to resistance to reinfection in the setting of IE. The choice among prosthetic options should be based on technical and patient-specific factors. Lack of availability of homografts should not impede appropriate surgical intervention.

BACKGROUND:The current study assesses outcomes and risk factors for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic regurgitation (AR) in the setting of markedly reduced left ventricular (LV) function compared with moderately reduced LV function and preserved LV function. METHODS:Between January 2002 and June 2013, 485 consecutive patients underwent AVR for severe AR. Overall, 37 of 485 patients (8%) had an LV ejection fraction (EF) less than or equal to 35% (low EF) with median of 30%; 141 of 485 patients (27%) had an LVEF of 36% to 50% (moderate) with median of 45%, and 307 of 485 patients (65%) had an LVEF greater than 50% (preserved) with median of 60%. RESULTS:Preoperative characteristics were similar across groups, except patients with low EF were older (67.4 ± 12.1 years versus moderate [58.6 ± 15.0 years], p = 0.003 versus preserved [56.9 ± 14.3 years], p = 0.001), more often had reoperations (35.1% versus preserved 19.9%, p = 0.054), and had more concomitant coronary artery bypass grafts (37.6% versus preserved 14.3%, p = 0.001). Operative mortality for the entire cohort was 1.9% (9 or 485) and was similar across groups, 0% in the low EF group, 2.1% (3 of 141) in the moderate group, and 2.0% (6 of 307) in the preserved group (all p > 0.5). Cox proportional hazard modeling indicated that age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.061, p ≤ 0.001), preoperative creatinine (HR 1.478, p ≤ 0.014), history of atrial fibrillation (HR 1.920, p = 0.095), and New York Heart Association class III/IV (HR 2.127, p = 0.004) predicted survival. At median follow-up of 26 months, in the low EF group, the mean LVEF at follow-up was 49.5% ± 10.2% versus baseline 30% ± 4.6% (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:In this series, patients with markedly reduced LV function (LVEF ≤35%) had similar postoperative outcomes and survival as patients with moderate LV dysfunction or preserved LV function.

BACKGROUND:Surgical pulmonary embolectomy (SPE) has been sparingly used for the successful treatment of massive and submassive pulmonary emboli. To date, all data regarding SPE have been limited to single-center experiences. The purpose of this study was to document short-term outcomes after SPE for acute pulmonary emboli (PE) at four high-volume institutions. METHODS:A retrospective review of multiple local Society of Thoracic Surgeons databases of adults undergoing SPE from 1998 to 2014 for acute PE was performed (n = 214). Demographic, operative, and outcomes data were collected and analyzed. Patients were summarily categorized as having either massive or submassive PEs based on the presence or absence of preoperative vasopressors. RESULTS:A total of 214 patients with acute PE were treated by SPE. The mean age was 56.0 ± 14.5 years, and 92 (43.6%) patients were female. Of those, 176 (82.2%) PEs were submassive and 38 (17.8%) were massive. Fifteen (7.0%) patients underwent concomitant cardiac procedures, with 10 (4.7%) having simultaneous valvular interventions and 5 (2.4%) undergoing concomitant bypass grafting. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was used for all cases. Cardioplegic arrest was used for 80 (37.4%) patients. The median CPB and aortic cross clamp times were 71.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 47.0-109.5) and 46.0 (IQR, 26.0-74.5), respectively. Notably, only 25 (11.7%) patients died in the hospital. Mortality was highest among the 28 patients who experienced preoperative cardiac arrest (9, 32.1%) CONCLUSIONS: These data represent the first multicenter experience with SPE for acute pulmonary emboli. Surgical pulmonary embolectomy for acute massive and submassive PE is safe and can be performed with acceptable in-hospital outcomes; the procedure should be included in the multimodality treatment of life-threatening pulmonary emboli.

BACKGROUND:Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery (mini AVR) is a safe and effective treatment option at many hospital centers, but there has not been widespread adoption of the procedure. Critics of mini AVR have called for additional evidence with direct comparison to aortic valve replacement (AVR) via full sternotomy (FS). METHODS:Our mini AVR approach is through a hemi-sternotomy (HS). We performed a propensity-score matched analysis of all patients undergoing isolated AVR via FS or HS at our institution since 2002, resulting in 552 matched pairs. Baseline characteristics were similar. Operative characteristics, transfusion rates, in-hospital outcomes as well as short and long term survival were compared between groups. RESULTS:Median cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp times were shorter in the HS group: 106 minutes [inter-quartile ranges (IQR) 87-135] vs. 124 minutes (IQR 90-169), P≤0.001, and 76 minutes (IQR 63-97) vs. 80 minutes (IQR 62-114), P≤0.005, respectively. HS patients had shorter ventilation times (median 5.7 hours, IQR 3.5-10.3 vs. 6.3 hours, IQR 3.9-11.2, P≤0.022), shorter intensive care unit stay (median 42 hours, IQR 24-71 vs. 45 hours, IQR 24-87, P≤0.039), and shorter hospital length of stay (median 6 days, IQR 5-8 vs. 7 days, IQR 5-10, P≤0.001) compared with the FS group. Intraoperative transfusions were more common in FS group: 27.9% vs. 20.0%, P≤0.003. No differences were seen in short or long term survival, or time to aortic valve re-intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Our study confirms the clinical benefits of minimally invasive AVR via HS, which includes decreased transfusion requirements, ventilation times, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay without compromising short and long term survival compared to conventional AVR via FS.

BACKGROUND:Posterior mitral valve leaflet prolapse due to degenerative mitral valve disease has been treated with tissue sparing repair techniques since 2002. The simplified foldoplasty technique effectively lowers the height of the redundant posterior leaflet and creates an optimal coaptation line for the anterior leaflet that results in excellent long term durability, freedom from reoperation, and return of functional status. METHODS:Patient demographics and in-hospital outcome data were extracted from electronic medical records of 229 patients, aged 60.6±13.7 years who underwent the procedure for mitral valve repair (MVR) involving the posterior leaflet from myxomatous disease between 2002 and 2014. Parametric analyses were performed on outcomes data, while long-term survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS:Concomitant coronary bypass surgery was performed on 32/229 (14%) patients, the mean perfusion time was 119±40 min, and the mean cross clamp time was 86±31 min. Post-operative mortality was 2/229 (0.9%), reoperation for bleeding occurred in 4 (1.7%) and postoperative stroke in 4 (1.7%) patients. Long term follow up rate was 100% and the mean study follow-up duration was 6.8±2.3 years. Overall late mortality rate was 24/229 (14.9%), and mitral valve re-intervention was performed on 7 patients (4.3%). NYHA class III/IV and clinically significant MR at follow up were significantly lower compared to preoperative values (both P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Our results encourage further use of this simple and effective technique in patients with isolated posterior leaflet prolapse.

BACKGROUND:Pulmonary embolectomy is often indicated for central pulmonary embolism (PE) with hemodynamic instability, but remains controversial for hemodynamically stable patients with signs of right ventricular dysfunction. Because thrombolytic therapy is often contraindicated postoperatively, we reviewed risk factors and outcomes of pulmonary embolectomy for stable and unstable central PE, particularly in the early postoperative period. METHODS:Between October 1999 and September 2013, 115 patients underwent pulmonary embolectomy for central, hemodynamically unstable PE (49 of 115, 43%) or hemodynamically stable PE (56 of 115, 49%). Ten operations for alternate indications (right atrial mass, endocarditis) were excluded for comparison analysis, leaving 105 patients. RESULTS:Mean age was 59 ± 13 years; 46 of 105 patients (44%) had recent surgery (within 5 weeks): orthopedic (12 of 46, 25%), neurosurgery (11 of 46, 24%), or general surgery (10 of 46, 22%). Preoperative demographics did not differ between groups, except for the frequency of cardiopulmonary resuscitation among unstable patients (11 of 49, 22%) versus stable patients (0 of 56, 0%; p < 0.001). Operative mortality for the combined groups was 6.6% (7 of 105): unstable 10.2% (5 of 49) versus stable 3.6% (2 of 56; p = 0.247). Of 11 patients requiring preoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 4 died. Six-month, 1-year, and 3-year survival rates were, respectively, 75%, 68.4%, and 65.8% for unstable PE, and 92.6%, 86.7%, and 80.4% for stable PE (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS:This large series of pulmonary embolectomies demonstrates excellent early and late survival rates for patients with stable PE and unstable PE. These findings confirm pulmonary embolectomy as a beneficial therapeutic option for central PE, especially during the postoperative period when thrombolytic therapy is often contraindicated.