Objective To evaluate the efficacy of Radiofrequency （RF） modified maze procedure combined with open-heart surgery for atrial fibrillation （AF）. Methods From January 2003 to October 2004, 66 patients underwent the RF modified maze Ⅲ procedure for AF combined with open-heart surgery. The preoperative and postoperative indexes of electrocardiogram and echoeardiogram were compared through retrospective analysis and follow-up. Postoperative cardiac function and thromboembolie events were evaluated through telephone and mail. Results The time needed for RF modified maze Ⅲ was 18.61±3.56 min. There were no hospital deaths and the complications was 15.15%（10/66）. Follow-up duration was 14.25±6.47 months with 95.45%（63/66） completion. At the lastest follow-up, the rate of freedom from AF was 80.95% （51/63）and the rate of restoration to sinus rhythm was 74.60%（47/63）. No thromboembolic events was seen. 77.78%（49/63） of patients were in NYHA class Ⅰ. Significant decrease was seen in both left atrial dimension （LAD） and left ventricular dimension （LVD）（P〈0.01） more than 6 months after operation. Conclusion RF modified maze Ⅲ procedure as an adjunctive procedure is safe, time-sparing and effective in eliminating AF.
For patients with aortic valve disease who require replacement of their native valve, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard of care. Due to the hemorrhage and thromboembolic risks of long-term anticoagulation therapy for mechanical prosthesis, bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) has a trend to be used in younger patients, which raising the concern for the durability of bioprosthetic valves. The newly published 5-year outcomes of PERIGON trial, with no structural valve deterioration, again demonstrated the favorable durability of the new generation bioprosthetic valves, further providing the evidence of using bioprosthetic AVR in younger patients. At the meantime, the rapid progress of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has brought a new treatment option. For younger patients with low risks, choosing SAVR or TAVI becomes a critical decision. This paper reviews the outcomes of PERIGON trial and its implications to the clinical practice and research of bioprosthetic AVR.
The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has brought up a new treatment option for patients with severe aortic valve disease. However, with the continuous expansion of surgical indications, problems such as structural valve deterioration caused by biological prosthesis have become increasingly prominent. In the newly announced 5-year follow-up results of COMMENCE (SAVR) trial, the aortic bioprosthesis using the new RESILIA biotissue material demonstrated extraordinary clinical safety, efficacy and durability with zero structural valve deterioration and excellent hemodynamic evaluation results. As a result, patients with valvular heart disease have more diverse therapeutic options. However, the choice between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and TAVR, biological prosthesis and mechanical prosthesis, etc, has become more and more prominent, which brings more difficulties to clinicians. This paper reviews the research background, 5-year follow-up results of COMMENCE trial and the implications for aortic valve surgery in China.
Abstract： Objective To summarize our operative experiences of cardiac reoperation after mechanical valve prosthesis replacement and investigate the causes of reoperation and the perioperative techniques and operation methods. Methods From January 2001 to December 2008, we performed reoperation on 105 patients (59 males and 46 females, aged 50.2±10.6 years old) who had undergone mechanical valve prosthesis replacement. Among the patients, there were 31 cases of mitral valvular replacement (+ tricuspid valvular plasticity), 38 cases of aortic valvular replacement (+ tricuspid valvular plasticity), 11 cases of Bentall procedure, 7 cases of mitral and aortic bivalvular replacement (+tricuspid valvular plasticity), 8 cases of tricuspid valvular replacement, 6 cases of repairing of prosthetic leakage, and 4 others cases. The time interval between two operations was 3 months to 18 years (46.3 ±31.9 months). Before reoperation, the cardiac function (NYHA) of the patients was class Ⅱ in 27 patients, class Ⅲ in 53 patients, and class Ⅳ in 25 patients. Results There were 6 hospital deaths with a mortality of 5.71%(6/105). All others recovered to NYHA class ⅠⅡ. The causes of mortality included 1 case of multiple organ failure, 1 case of low cardiac output after operation, 1 case of aortic pseudoaneurysm rupture, 1 case of severe infection due to brain complication and 2 cases of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). The causes for cardiac reoperation after mechanical valve prosthesis replacement were 67 cases of prosthetic leakage (63.80%), 16 cases of PVE (15.23%), 14 cases of prosthetic thrombosis (13.33%) and 8 cases of other valvular anomalies. Followup was done for 11 to 107 months, which showed two cases late deaths of cardiac arrest and cerebral hemorrhage. Conclusion Patients who have received mechanical valve prosthesis replacement may undergo cardiac reoperation due to paravalvular prosthetic leakage, paravalvular endocarditis, and prosthetic thrombosis. The keys to a successful cardiac reoperation include appropriate preoperative preparations, operational timing, and suitable choosing of cardiopulmonary bypass and operational skills.
Although heart transplantation remains to be the optimal treatment for advanced heart failure, its use has been largely limited due to shortage of available donor organs. Over the past two decades, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has been significantly modified in size, durability and hemocompatibility. In addition to the bridge to transplantation, LVAD has become an attractive alternative to heart transplantation for end-stage heart failure as destination therapy for unsuitable candidates. Although the performance of LVAD has been improving greatly in recent years, there are still great challenges in the management of device complications and low quality of life after implantation. This review will summarize the types of LVAD, indications for implantation, postoperative management and adverse events.
Peripheral vascular path is an important approach for minimally invasive cardiovascular surgery and cardiovascular interventional diagnosis and treatment, and the treatment of the vascular approach after surgery is directly related to the postoperative braking time and comfort of patients. The traditional treatment methods mainly include compression fixation of puncture point or incision of skin to suture blood vessels, but the disadvantages such as long postoperative immobilization, potential vascular complications and patient discomfort are obvious. The application of vascular closure devices can reduce the shortcomings of traditional treatment methods, but different vascular closure devices have their characteristics and application scope, and improper application may lead to serious complications. This paper reviewed the information of several commonly used vascular closure device and relevant clinical research data in recent years, and introduced the characteristics, application and clinical effects of common vascular closure devices.
Abstract:Objective To investigate immunoinh.ibitory effects of paclitaxel on acute rejection of allogeneic heart transplantation in rats. Methods Heterotopic abdominal cardiac transplantation was performed from Wistar rats to SD rats. Seventy recipients were randomly divided into five groups,14 rats in each group. Control group： rats didn＇t receive any immunoinhibitory drug; group Ⅰ ： low-dose paclitaxel （0.75 mg/kg · d） was injected intraperitoneally; group Ⅱ ： high-dose paclitaxel （1.5 mg/kg ·d） was injected intraperitoneally; group Ⅲ ： cyclosporin A（CsA, 5 mg/ kg·d） was administered orally; group Ⅳ ： low-dose paclitaxel （0. 75 mg/kg · d） was injected intraperitoneally in combination with CsA （5 mg/kg · d administered orally）. General conditions of recipient, allograft survival and pathologic lesion at 7th day posttransplantation were observed. Results Allograft survival in treating groups were significantly prolonged compared with control group （P〈 0. 05）. Moreover, allograft survival in group IV was significantly prolonged compared with those in group Ⅰ and group Ⅲ （P〈0.05）. On 7th day posttransplantation, cardiac allograft looked swollen and International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation （ISHLT） score was 3 or 4 in control group; cardiac allograft beat vigorously, showed pink in color and felt tender in group Ⅰ and group Ⅱ , ISHLT-score was 2 or 3. Compared to control group, pathologic lesion of grafts in group Ⅰ and group Ⅱ were significantly relieved （P〈0.05）. Cardiac allograft beat well and ISHLT-score was 2 in group Ⅲ. Cardiac allograft looked as normal and beat vigorously, ISHLT-score was less than 2 in group IV ; the protective effects on cardiac allograft was better than those in group Ⅰ and group Ⅱ （P〈0. 05）. Conclusion Paclitaxel could obviously suppress acute rejection and prolong survival of rat cardiac allograft. Paclitaxel and CsA has synergistic effect on prevention acute rejection.