Suri, Rakesh M.

Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) versus conventional median sternotomy (open) in the repair of secundum atrial septal defect (ASD) or patent foramen ovale (PFO). Design: Among 415 consecutive patients undergoing open or VATS ASD/PFO closure between 1993 and October 2012, 153 patients were compared using 2:1 frequency matching (n = 102 open vs 51 VATS). Matching variables include age, gender, body surface area, past medical history of neurologic events, and need of patch closure. Median age was 43 years (3-71 years), and 67% were female. Results: There were no early deaths in either group. There were no conversions to open sternotomy. Although mean cross-clamp time (14.5 ± 7.6 vs 26.3 ± 13.2 minutes, P < .001) and bypass time (31.7 ± 13.8 vs 60.9 ± 20.9 minutes, P < .001) were longer in the VATS group, patients who underwent VATS had shorter postoperative ventilation time (7.5 ± 6.4 vs 4.4 ± 2.8 hours, P = .03) with 62.7% extubated in the operating room, along with shorter intensive care unit stay (26.7 ± 10.8 vs 19.1 ± 9.9 hours, P < .001) and hospital stay (5.2 ± 1.9 vs 3.5 ± 0.9 days, P < .001). At early follow-up (mean 1.5 years, maximum 4.2 years), there was no difference in need for reintervention. Of the 27 patients who underwent VATS ASD/PFO closure for a neurologic event, none had a recurrence. Conclusion: The use of VATS provides a safe, equally effective alternative to conventional sternotomy for ASD/PFO closure, using a less invasive approach.

Background— The objective was to evaluate the effects of aortic annulus size on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes in those patients included in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) randomized controlled trial cohort A and the nonrandomized continued access cohort. Methods and Results— Patients included the randomized controlled trial (n=574) and nonrandomized continued access (n=1358) cohorts were divided in tertiles according to aortic annulus diameter (small aortic annulus tertile, medium aortic annulus tertile, and large aortic annulus tertile [LAA], respectively) as measured by transthoracic echocardiography. Severe prosthesis–patient mismatch was defined as an effective aortic orifice area of <0.65 cm 2 /m 2 . In the randomized controlled trial cohort, patients in the small aortic annulus tertile who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement had a lower incidence of severe prosthesis–patient mismatch (19.7% versus 37.5%; P =0.03) and only a trend toward a higher incidence of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (5.7% versus 0%; P =0.06). In the LAA tertile, there were no differences in the rate of prosthesis–patient mismatch between groups, and a significant increase in moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks was associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (9% versus 0%; P =0.01). There were no differences in mortality between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. In the nonrandomized continued access cohort, there were no differences in prosthesis–patient mismatch between the small aortic annulus and LAA tertiles, but a higher rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks was observed in the LAA tertile (5.9% versus 11.5%; P =0.009). Patients in the LAA tertile had a higher mortality rate at 1-year follow-up ( P =0.02), and differences persisted in multivariable analysis ( P =0.048 for LAA versus medium aortic annulus tertile, P =0.035 for LAA versus small aortic annulus tertile). Conclusions— Aortic annulus size had a major impact on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. This study highlights the importance of considering aortic annulus size in the evaluation of high-risk patients who are candidates for aortic valve replacement. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Mitral Valve Injury with Catheter AblationIntroductionAn increasing number of catheter ablations involve the mitral annular region and valve apparatus, increasing the risk of catheter interaction with the mitral valve (MV) complex. We review our experience with catheter ablation‐related MV injury resulting in severe mitral regurgitation (MR) to delineate mechanisms of injury and outcomes.MethodsWe searched the Mayo Clinic MV surgical database over a 19‐year period (1993–2012) and the electrophysiologic procedures database over a 23‐year period (1990–2013) and identified 9 patients with catheter ablation related MV injury requiring clinical intervention.ResultsIndications for ablation included atrial fibrillation (AF) [n = 4], ventricular tachycardia (VT) [n = 3], and left‐sided accessory pathways [n = 2]. In all 4 AF patients, a circular mapping catheter entrapped in the MV apparatus was responsible for severe MR. In all 3 VT patients, radiofrequency energy delivery led to direct injury to the MV apparatus. In the 2 patients with accessory pathways, both mechanisms were involved (1 per patient). Six patients required surgical intervention (5 MV repair, 1 catheter removal). One patient developed severe functional MR upon successful endovascular catheter disentanglement that improved spontaneously. Two VT patients with persistent severe postablation MR were managed nonsurgically, 1 of whom died 3 months postprocedure.ConclusionCircular mapping catheter entrapment and ablation at the mitral annulus are the most common etiologies of MV injury during catheter ablation. Close surveillance of the MV is needed during such procedures and early surgical repair is important for successful salvage if significant injury occurs.

Objective Multiple-valve (MUV) procedures currently exhibit higher operative mortality than do single-valve procedures, but a paucity of scientific information exists to explain the observation. This topic was examined using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. Methods All patients in the The Society of Thoracic Surgeons data set undergoing valve surgery (except pulmonary valve and aortic root operations) from 1993 through 2007 were identified (N = 623,039). Baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes were contrasted between all seven combinations of single-valve and MUV procedures involving aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valves. Seven independent logistic regression analyses were performed, based on the seven procedures, and multivariable risk factors for mortality were compared, with emphasis on single-valve versus MUV procedures. Results Baseline characteristics for MUV procedures (n = 67,926) shared many similarities to those for single-valve procedures (n = 555,113), including age, ejection fraction, and comorbidities. Preoperative renal failure, New York Heart Association class III to IV, nonelective presentation, and reoperation were slightly more common in MUV subsets, and coronary bypass was less frequent. Operative mortality was almost double for MUV as compared with single-valve procedures (10.7% vs 5.7%, P = 0.0001). Categorical predictors with the largest odds ratios for mortality were emergency status, renal failure, and second reoperation. However, predictors for mortality were generally consistent in order and magnitude between the single-valve and MUV subgroups. Conclusions Despite similarities in preoperative profiles of the patients undergoing single-valve and MUV procedures, mortality for MUV surgery remains considerably higher. Determinants of operative mortality and morbidity differ little across the procedural groups, and these findings serve as a benchmark for future studies, as well as suggest a continued search for explanations of poorer MUV outcomes.