Impact of concomitant aortic valve replacement in patients with mild-to-moderate aortic valve regurgitation undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation: EUROMACS analysis

Introduction: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy may lead to an aortic regurgitation, limiting left ventricular unloading and causing adverse events. Whether concomitant aortic valve replacement may improve outcomes in patients with preoperative mild-to-moderate aortic regurgitation remains unclear. Methods: A retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of adult patients with preoperative mild-to-moderate aortic regurgitation undergoing durable LVAD implantation between 01/01/2011 and 30/11/2021 was performed. Patients undergoing concomitant valve surgery other than biological aortic valve replacement were excluded, resulting in 77 with concomitant biological aortic valve replacement and 385 without. Results: Following 1:1 propensity score matching, two groups of 55 patients with and without biological aortic valve replacement were obtained, (mean age 59 ± 11 years, 92% male, 59.1% HeartWare). Aortic regurgitation was mild in 72.7% and 76.4% and moderate in 27.3% and 23.6% in non-replacement and replacement cohorts respectively. The 30-day survival was 89.1% vs. 85.5% (p = 0.59), 1-year survival 69.1% vs. 56.4% (p = 0.19), and 2-year survival 61.8% vs. 47.3% (p = 0.10) in the non-replacement and replacement groups, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 1.2 years, non-replacement patients had a higher incidence of pump thrombosis (11 [20%] vs. 3 [5.5%], p = 0.022) and fewer major bleedings (2 [3.6%] vs. 11 [20%], p = 0.008). Conclusion: Compared with those treated conservatively, patients with mild-to-moderate aortic regurgitation undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement during LVAD implantation have a similar survival up to 2 years on support. Patients with concomitant valve replacement had a higher risk of bleeding complications but fewer pump thromboses

Outcomes of patients after successful left ventricular assist device explantation: a EUROMACS study

Aims: Sufficient myocardial recovery with the subsequent explantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) occurs in approximately 1–2% of the cases. However, follow-up data about this condition are scarcely available in the literature. This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes and clinical management following LVAD explantation. Methods and results: An analysis of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support was performed to identify all adult patients with myocardial recovery and successful explantation. Pre-implant characteristics were retrieved and compared with the non-recovery patients. The follow-up data after explantation were collected via a questionnaire. A Kaplan–Meier analysis for freedom of the composite endpoint of death, heart transplantation, LVAD reimplantion, or heart failure (HF) relapse was conducted. A total of 45 (1.4%) cases with myocardial recovery resulting in successful LVAD explantation were identified. Compared with those who did not experience myocardial recovery, the explanted patients were younger (44 vs. 56 years, P < 0.001), had a shorter duration of cardiac disease (P < 0.001), and were less likely to have ischaemic cardiomyopathy (9% vs. 41.8%, P < 0.001). Follow-up after explantation could be acquired in 28 (62%) cases. The median age at LVAD implantation was 43 years (inter-quartile range: 29–52),

Clinical impact and 'natural' course of uncorrected tricuspid regurgitation after implantation of a left ventricular assist device: an analysis of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS)

OBJECTIVES: Data on the impact and course of uncorrected tricuspid regurgitation (TR) during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are scarce and inconsistent. This study explores the clinical impact and natural course of uncorrected TR in patients after LVAD implantation. METHODS: The European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support was used to identify adult patients with LVAD implants without concomitant tricuspid valve surgery. A mediation model was developed to assess the association of TR with 30-day mortality via other risk factors. Generalized mixed models were used to model the course of post-LVAD TR. Joint models were used to perform sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2496 procedures were included (median age: 56 years; men: 83%). TR was not directly associated with higher 30-day mortality, but mediation analyses suggested an indirect association via preoperative elevated right atrial pressure and creatinine (P = 0.035) and bilirubin (P = 0.027) levels. Post-LVAD TR was also associated with increased late mortality [hazard ratio 1.16 (1.06-1.3); P = 0.001]. On average, uncorrected TR diminished after LVAD implantation. The probability of having moderate-to-severe TR immediately after an implant in patients with none-to-mild TR pre-LVAD was 10%; in patients with moderate-to-severe TR pre-LVAD, it was 35% and continued to decrease in patients with moderate-to-severe TR pre-LVAD, regardless of pre-LVAD right ventricular failure or pulmonary hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Uncorrected TR pre-LVAD and post-LVAD is associated with increased early and late mortality. Nevertheless, on average, TR diminishes progr

Expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Results of a survey by the EANS neuro-oncology section

Introduction: Technical advances and the increasing role of interdisciplinary decision-making may warrant formal definitions of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Research question: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section felt that a survey detailing the European neurosurgical perspective on the concept of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology might be helpful. Material and methods: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section panel developed an online survey asking questions regarding criteria for expertise in neuro-oncological surgery and sent it to all individual EANS members. Results: Our questionnaire was completed by 251 respondents (consultants: 80.1%) from 42 countries. 67.7% would accept a lifetime caseload of &gt;200 cases and 86.7% an annual caseload of &gt;50 as evidence of neuro-oncological surgical expertise. A majority felt that surgeons who do not treat children (56.2%), do not have experience with spinal fusion (78.1%) or peripheral nerve tumors (71.7%) may still be considered experts. Majorities believed that expertise requires the use of skull-base approaches (85.8%), intraoperative monitoring (83.4%), awake craniotomies (77.3%), and neuro-endoscopy (75.5%) as well as continuing education of at least 1/year (100.0%), a research background (80.0%) and teaching activities (78.7%), and formal interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., tumor board: 93.0%). Academic vs. non-academic affiliation, career position, years of neurosurgical experience, country of practice, and primary clinical interest had a minor influence on the respondents’ opinions. Discussion and conclusion: Opinions among neurosurgeons regarding the characteristics and features of expertise in neuro-oncology vary surprisingly little. Large majorities favoring certain thresholds and qualitative criteria suggest a consensus definition might be possible

2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support

Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/