AlBarakat, Majd M.

Abstract Left atrial enlargement is a well-recognized marker of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but its impact on early morbidity and mortality after valve replacement remains uncertain. We retrospectively reviewed 422 patients who underwent aortic and/or mitral valve replacement (MVR) for rheumatic heart disease at X between 2004 and 2022. Preoperative left atrial diameter index (LADI) was measured, and patients were classified as normal (<2.3 cm/m2) or abnormal (≥2.3 cm/m2). Clinical, operative, and postoperative outcomes were compared. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints included postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF), neurological events, renal impairment, re-exploration for bleeding, and intraoperative pacing wire requirement. Nearly half of patients (48.8%) had abnormal LADI. Patients with enlarged atria were more often female, had smaller body size, and were significantly more likely to undergo MVR (42.7% versus 18.1%, p < 0.001). Abnormal LADI was strongly associated with POAF (16.0% versus 7.4%, p = 0.006) and intraoperative pacing wire insertion (38.3% versus 23.5%, p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed severe LADI as an independent predictor of POAF (OR 3.91, p = 0.001) and pacing requirements (OR 2.31, p = 0.004). No significant differences were observed in 30-day mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, renal dysfunction, or bleeding complications. Preoperative LADI is an independent predictor of postoperative arrhythmic complications and pacing needs after valve replacement, but not early mortality. Incorporating LADI into preoperative risk assessment may improve rhythm surveillance and perioperative planning. Future prospective studies should evaluate its long-term prognostic value and role in reverse remodeling after surgery.

Background: Pulsatile perfusion is a developing technique that attempts to mimic the natural pulsatile flow of blood during cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP). Purpose: Our meta-analysis was done to evaluate the effects of pulsatile perfusion in CPB compared to non-pulsatile on hospital stay, ICU stay, and intubation time. Methods: Randomized control trials that evaluated the implementation of pulsatile perfusion during CPB were identified by a literature search of the following databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Central, and Embase) up to February 2024. Results: Our search yielded 33 trials with 3174 patients, the analysis showed that pulsatile perfusion led to a significant decrease in hospital stay [MD = -1.38, 95% CI (-2.51, -0.25), P = 0.016], ICU stay [MD = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.82, -0.13), P = 0.007], intubation time [MD = -3.73, 95% CI (-5.42, -2.04), P < 0.001]. However, no significant difference between the two regimens was detected in the adult subgroup when we performed sungroup analysis based on the age for hospital stay and ICU stay outcomes [MD = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.95, 0.33), P = 0.334] and [MD = -3.73, 95% CI (-5.42, -2.04), P < 0.001] respectively. Conclusion: Pulsatile perfusion showed positive effects on hospital stay, ICU stay, and intubation time. However, there was no difference between the two methods on hospital and ICU stay in the adult’s subgroup. Also, the outcomes showed significant heterogeneity, which requires more robust RCTs to be conducted to increase the quality and the certainty of evidence.