Nenna, Antonio

The systemic impairment that accompanies liver cirrhosis is known to carry a significant burden on death and postoperative complications in cardiovascular interventions. This review analyzes the impact of liver cirrhosis on short‐ and long‐term outcomes after cardiac surgery and percutaneous procedures, providing an evidence‐based guidance in the decision‐making process and perioperative management of these patients. Several parameters should be considered by the heart teams when assessing eligibility, indications for intervention, and perioperative management of these patients. Life expectancy, long‐term procedural outcomes, Child–Pugh or the Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score, presence of gastroesophageal varices and hepatic venous pressure gradient were extrapolated as the main determinants in decision making in patients with cirrhosis. Assessment and treatment of gastroesophageal varices is mandatory. Hepatic venous pressure gradient values >20 mm Hg preclude patients from a surgical approach. Considering the poor prognosis of advanced liver cirrhosis, futile treatments should be avoided. A multidimensional heart team approach involving surgical, cardiologic, anesthesiologic, hepatological, and medical considerations is recommended.

Background Aortic valve stenosis (AVS) represents the most prevalent primary valvular lesion necessitating surgical intervention or transcatheter intervention in Europe and North America. Its prevalence is increasing at a rapid rate as a consequence of the ageing population. A variety of mechanical interventions are available to determine the management of AVS; however, there is currently a paucity of robust data with which to perform a comparative analysis of the efficacy of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and that of conventional stented xenograft bioprostheses (BP) or sutureless aortic valves (SAV) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The present study aims to compare the effectiveness and clinical outcomes of SAVR using BP or SAV technique and TAVI in patients with severe AVS. Methods and analysis A collaboration between three cardiac surgery centres across two European countries has resulted in the conception of the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement trial. This prospective non-randomised trial is designed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of TAVI in comparison to SAVR for AVS in patients at risk of severe valve obstruction. The registry will enrol successive patients who have undergone mechanical intervention for AVS between January 2015 and December 2025. Investigators will assess the difference between replacement procedures for both the standard surgical approach and the transcatheter procedure. The principal clinical outcome under consideration will be the composite degree of all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke or rehospitalisation at 10 years. The present study will also have a number of secondary endpoints, including all-cause mortality, followed by functional status, hospitalisation, neurocognition, physiological measures (echocardiographic assessment), adverse events and reoperation. Ethics and dissemination It is hypothesised that the nature of the trials will serve to minimise bias related to institutional volume and surgical experience. Each participating centre is required to have an aortic valve programme that enables proper follow-up and management of any late aortic events following replacement surgery for the AVS. The data collected will provide valuable insight into the comparative effectiveness of various surgical approaches, both standardised and advanced, in aortic valve surgery and TAVI. This comprehensive analysis will contribute significantly to the development of robust international guidelines. Trial registration number Clinical Trial Gov.Com. ID: NCT05261204 IRB. ID: 2022011057

Abstract Background Previous meta‐analyses combining randomized and observational evidence in cardiac surgery have shown positive impact of enhanced recovery protocols after surgery (ERAS) on postoperative outcomes. However, definitive data based on randomized studies are missing, and the entirety of the ERAS measures and pathway, as recently systematized in guidelines and consensus statements, have not been captured in the published studies. The available literature actually focuses on “ERAS‐like” protocols or only limited number of ERAS measures. This study aims at analyzing all randomized studies applying ERAS‐like protocols in cardiac surgery for perioperative outcomes. Methods A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERAS‐like with standard protocols of perioperative care was performed (PROSPERO registration CRD42021283765). PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting and assessing data. Results Thirteen single center RCTs ( N = 1704, 850 in ERAS‐like protocol and 854 in the standard care group) were selected. The most common procedures were surgical revascularization (66.3%) and valvular surgery (24.9%). No difference was found in the incidence of inhospital mortality between the ERAS and standard treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0.61 [0.31; 1.20], p = 0.15). ERAS was associated with reduced intensive care unit (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.57, p < 0.01) and hospital stay (SMD −0.23, p < 0.01) and reduced rates of overall complications when compared to the standard protocol (RR 0.60, p < 0.01) driven by the reduction in stroke (RR 0.29 [0.13; 0.62], p < 0.01). A significant heterogeneity in terms of the elements of the ERAS protocol included in the studies was observed. Conclusions ERAS‐like protocols have no impact on short‐term survival after cardiac surgery but allows for a faster hospital discharge while potentially reducing surgical complications. However, this study highlights a significant nonadherence and heterogeneity to the entirety of ERAS protocols warranting further RCTs in this field including a greater number of elements of the framework.

Objectives. The current guidelines still do not include specific recommendations on the use of subvalvular repair (SV-r) for treatment of ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR). Therefore, the objective of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of mitral regurgitation (MR) recurrence and ventricular remodeling on long-term outcomes after SV-r combined with restrictive annuloplasty (RA-r). Methods. We performed a subanalysis of the papillary muscle approximation trial, studying 96 patients with severe IMR and coronary artery disease undergoing restrictive annuloplasty alongside subvalvular repair (SV-r + RA-r group) or restrictive annuloplasty alone (RA-r group). We analyzed treatment failure differences, the influence of residual MR, left ventricular remodeling, and clinical outcomes. The primary endpoint was treatment failure (composite of death; reoperation; or recurrence of moderate, moderate-to-severe, or severe MR) within 5 years of follow-up after the procedure. Results. A total of 45 patients showed failure of the treatment within 5 years, of which 16 patients underwent SV-r + RA-r (35.6%) and 29 underwent RA-r (64.4%, p = 0.006). Patients with significant residual MR presented with a higher rate of all-cause mortality at 5 years compared with trivial MR (HR 9.09, 95% CI 2.08–33.33, p = 0.003). MR progression occurred earlier in the RA-r group, as 20 patients in the RA-r group vs. 6 in SV-r + RA-r group had a significant MR 2 years after surgery (p = 0.002). Conclusions. RA-r remains a surgical mitral repair technique with an increased risk of failure and mortality at 5 years compared with SV-r. The rates of recurrent MR are higher, and recurrence occurs earlier, with RA-r alone compared to SV-r. The addition of the subvalvular repair increases the durability of the repair, thus extending all of the benefits of preventing MR recurrence.