scholarly journals Active chest tube clearance after aortic valve surgery did not influence amount residual pericardial fluid after aortic valve replacement in a randomised trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-205
Author(s):  
Linnéa Malgerud ◽  
Eva Maret ◽  
Christian Reitan ◽  
Torbjörn Ivert
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Chest Tube ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Pericardial Fluid ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Aortic Valve Surgery

Management of a Protruding Right Coronary Artery Stent during Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nnamdi Nwaejike ◽  
Christopher Rozario ◽  
Franco Sogliani
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Aortic Valve Surgery ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

We describe the successful management of a stent protruding from the right coronary ostium into the aortic root in the setting of aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. Due to advances in medical care more elderly patients present for aortic valve surgery after percutaneous coronary intervention. Therefore, with an aging population due to advances in medical care, more patients will present for aortic valve surgery after percutaneous coronary intervention. We suggest a degree of caution before valve deployment in transcatheter aortic valve intervention or during annular manipulation in patients undergoing traditional aortic valve replacement with coexisting patent proximal stents.

New Trends in Aortic Valve Surgery: A critical Review of Standard Prosthesis v. Stentless Replacement and Repair

1994 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-74
Author(s):  
Carlos MG Duran ◽  
Begonia Gometza ◽  
Fareed Khouqeer ◽  
Ali Al-Sanei ◽  
Zohair Al-Halees
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Aortic Valve Surgery ◽  
Mechanical Prosthesis ◽  
Actuarial Survival ◽  
Group I ◽  
Repair Group

Different alternatives for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease have been recently introduced. All consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve surgery between July 1988 and March 1994 were reviewed. There were 674 patients with a mean age of 32.4 years, mean preoperative functional class of 2.82, and rheumatic etiology in 59% of the cases. The patients were divided into 3 groups: Group I. standard aortic valve replacement with biological and mechanical prosthesis ( n = 313); Group II. stentless aortic valve replacement using homograft, pulmonary autograft and reconstruction with pericardium ( n = 145); and Group HI. aortic valve repair ( n = 216). The hospital mortality was 6.07% for the standard, 0.68% for the stentless, and 3.70% for the repair. Total follow-up was 1,304.75 patient years with a mean of 21.93 months. The actuarial survival at 66 months excluding hospital mortality was 85.24 ± 4.59% in the standard replacement, 92.63 ± 4.03% in the stentless, and 91.20 ± 3.02% in the repair group. The highest incidence of reoperation corresponded to the repair group with an actuarial freedom from reoperation of 74.26 ±7.03%, v. 92.52 ±4.52% in the standard and 85.11 ± 6.71% in the stentless group. There were no thromboembolic events in the isolated aortic valve survivors in both the stentless and repair groups and 1.28% patient years in the standard. We conclude that both the stentless aortic valve replacement and the aortic repair represent a good alternative v. standard replacement, especially for those young rheumatic patients in which anticoagulation and durability of the prosthesis is still a problem.

scholarly journals A ministernotomia szerepe az aortabillentyű-sebészetben

2016 ◽  
Vol 157 (23) ◽  
pp. 901-904
Author(s):  
Gábor Bari ◽  
László Csepregi ◽  
Miklós Bitay ◽  
Gábor Bogáts
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Surgery ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Minimal Access ◽  
Aortic Valve Surgery ◽  
Aortic Replacement ◽  
The University ◽  
Special Instrumentation

Introduction: Minimal access aortic valve replacement plays a significant role in modern cardiac surgery. The technical evolution of aortic bioprostheses, particularly sutureless valves, leads to simplify minimal access aortic valve surgery and it allows easier implantation in a narrow work field with the need of less manipulation. Aim: The aim of this study is to summarize the historical and technical aspects of minimal access aortic valve replacement, especially concentrating on sutureless valves, and to present data of own patients of the authors. Method: Pre- and post-operative data of 13 minimal access aortic replacement cases who were operated at the Deparment of Cardiac Sugery at the University of Szeged are summarized. Results and conclusions: As compared to full sternotomy, minimal access aortic surgery is safe, and it does not require special instrumentation. It is technically more demanding but it can be learned quickly, and the overall pre- and post-operative results are not worse with the benefit of less pain and superior cosmetics. Orv. Hetil., 2016, 157(23), 901–904.

scholarly journals Surgical Complexity and Outcome of Patients Undergoing Re-do Aortic Valve Surgery

Open Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e001209
Author(s):  
Renata Greco ◽  
Mirko Muretti ◽  
Jasmina Djordjevic ◽  
Xu Yu Jin ◽  
Elaine Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Aortic Surgery ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Mechanical Valve ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Paravalvular Leak ◽  
Aortic Valve Surgery ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity

ObjectivesRe-do aortic valve surgery carries a higher mortality and morbidity compared with first time aortic valve replacement (AVR) and often requires concomitant complex procedures. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option for selective patients. The aim of this study is to present our experience with re-do aortic valve procedures and give an insight into the characteristics of these patients and their outcomes.MethodsRetrospective review of 80 consecutive re-do aortic valve procedures.ResultsMean patients’ age was 51.80±18.73 years. Aortic regurgitation (AR) was present in 51 (65.4%) patients and aortic stenosis (AS) in 38 (48.7%). Indications for reoperation were: infective endocarditis (IE) (23.8%), bioprosthetic degeneration (12.5%), mechanical valve dysfunction (5%), paravalvular leak (6.2%), patient–prosthesis mismatch (3.8%), native valve disease (25%), aortic aneurysm, pseudoaneurysm and dissection (35%), aortic root/homograft degeneration (27.5%). Forty-one (51.2%) patients underwent re-do AVR, 39 (48.8%) re-do complex aortic valve surgery (28 root, 23 ascending aorta and 6 hemiarch procedures) and 37.5% concomitant procedures. A bioprosthesis was implanted in 43.8%, a mechanical valve in 37.5%, a composite graft in 2.5%, a Biovalsalva graft in 6.2% and a homograft in 10% of patients. In-hospital mortality was 3.8% and incidence of major complications was low.ConclusionsA significant proportion of patients were young (61%<60 y), required complex aortic procedures (49%) or presented with contraindications for TAVR (mechanical valve, AR, IE, proximal aortic disease, need for concomitant surgery). Re-do aortic surgery remains the only treatment for such challenging cases and can be performed with acceptable mortality and morbidity in a specialised aortic centre.

scholarly journals Low-Computational Cost Stitching Method in a Three-Eyed Endoscope

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Virginia Mamone ◽  
Sara Condino ◽  
Fabrizio Cutolo ◽  
Izadyar Tamadon ◽  
Arianna Menciassi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Computational Cost ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Wide Field ◽  
Aortic Valve Surgery ◽  
Image Size

Aortic valve replacement is the only definitive treatment for aortic stenosis, a highly prevalent condition in elderly population. Minimally invasive surgery brought numerous benefits to this intervention, and robotics recently provided additional improvements in terms of telemanipulation, motion scaling, and smaller incisions. Difficulties in obtaining a clear and wide field of vision is a major challenge in minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: surgeon orientates with difficulty because of lack of direct view and limited spaces. This work focuses on the development of a computer vision methodology, for a three-eyed endoscopic vision system, to ease minimally invasive instrument guidance during aortic valve surgery. Specifically, it presents an efficient image stitching method to improve spatial awareness and overcome the orientation problems which arise when cameras are decentralized with respect to the main axis of the aorta and are nonparallel oriented. The proposed approach was tested for the navigation of an innovative robotic system for minimally invasive valve surgery. Based on the specific geometry of the setup and the intrinsic parameters of the three cameras, we estimate the proper plane-induced homographic transformation that merges the views of the operatory site plane into a single stitched image. To evaluate the deviation from the image correct alignment, we performed quantitative tests by stitching a chessboard pattern. The tests showed a minimum error with respect to the image size of 0.46 ± 0.15% measured at the homography distance of 40 mm and a maximum error of 6.09 ± 0.23% at the maximum offset of 10 mm. Three experienced surgeons in aortic valve replacement by mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy performed experimental tests based on the comparison of navigation and orientation capabilities in a silicone aorta with and without stitched image. The tests showed that the stitched image allows for good orientation and navigation within the aorta, and furthermore, it provides more safety while releasing the valve than driving from the three separate views. The average processing time for the stitching of three views into one image is 12.6 ms, proving that the method is not computationally expensive, thus leaving space for further real-time processing.

Single-Center Outcomes with Rapid Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Schlömicher ◽  
Matthias Bechtel ◽  
Dritan Useini ◽  
Hamid Naraghi ◽  
Peter Lukas Haldenwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Aortic Valve Surgery ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Rapid Deployment

Abstract Objectives Rapid-deployment valves can reduce procedural times and may facilitate minimally invasive surgery. In our institution, more than 500 patients underwent rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods A total of 510 patients underwent rapid deployment AVR between March 2012 and September 2017, of whom 270 patients underwent isolated AVR and 240 underwent AVR with concomitant procedures. The cumulative follow-up time was 1,444 patient-years, the median follow-up time 2.8 years, respectively Results An early all-cause mortality of 3.5% (n = 18) was seen with a cumulative survival of 91.9 ± 2.2% after 12 months. Mean cross-clamp times were 37 ± 19 minutes for isolated AVR and 93 ± 29 minutes for AVR with concomitant procedures. The rate of new pacemaker implantation was 7.8% (n = 40). No case of structural degeneration occurred in the follow-up. Three (0.6%) cases of endocarditis were registered. Conclusions Rapid deployment AVR can be performed safely with low complication rates and good hemodynamic results. Therefore, the relevance in aortic valve surgery can be stressed.

Improved Patient Recovery With Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery: A Propensity-Matched Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 419-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piergiorgio Bruno ◽  
Federico Cammertoni ◽  
Raphael Rosenhek ◽  
Andrea Mazza ◽  
Natalia Pavone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Assisted Ventilation ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Aortic Valve Surgery ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Matched Study

Objective Despite conflicting evidence available, minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is increasingly used as an alternative to full sternotomy. We sought to compare early outcomes of aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy (conventional aortic valve replacement [CAVR]) and upper ministernotomy (MIAVR). Methods We analyzed 297 patients having undergone primary, elective, isolated MIAVR or CAVR between January 2014 and June 2018. Following propensity score matching, 120 patients remained in each group. Results MIAVR required longer bypass (93 ± 26 vs 81 ± 24 minutes, P < 0.01) and operative times (214 ± 39 vs 182 ± 37 minutes, P < 0.01). However, aortic cross-clamp times were comparable (57 ± 17 vs 54 ± 14 minutes for MIAVR and CAVR, respectively, P = 0.14). MIAVR had less 24-hour blood loss (253 ± 204 vs 323 ± 296 mL, P = 0.03), less red blood cells transfusions [1.4 packs (1.1 o 1.9) vs 2.1 packs (1.8 to 2.7), P = 0.01], and shorter assisted ventilation time (7.1 ± 3.3 vs 9.7 ± 3.8 hours, P < 0.01) when compared to CAVR. These results led to significantly shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays for MIAVR patients (2.5 ± 1.3 vs 3.4 ± 1.1 days, P < 0.01 and 6.9 ± 4.1 vs 8.2 ± 4.8 days, P = 0.03, respectively). Thirty-day mortality and clinical outcomes did not differ significantly among groups. Conclusions MIAVR through upper ministernotomy was shown to be as safe and reliable as CAVR. Patient recovery time was improved by shortening mechanical ventilation and reducing blood loss and transfusions. These results may be significant for high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document