Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 71(05): 356-365
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-57228
Review Article

Cardiac Surgery 2022 Reviewed

Torsten Doenst
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, University Hospital, Jena, Germany
,
Ulrich Schneider
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, University Hospital, Jena, Germany
,
Tulio Caldonazo
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, University Hospital, Jena, Germany
,
Sultonbek Toshmatov
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, University Hospital, Jena, Germany
,
Mahmoud Diab 
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, University Hospital, Jena, Germany
,
Thierry Siemeni
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, University Hospital, Jena, Germany
,
Gloria Färber
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, University Hospital, Jena, Germany
,
Hristo Kirov
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, University Hospital, Jena, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

PubMed displayed almost 37,000 hits for the search term “cardiac surgery AND 2022.” As before, we used the PRISMA approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. We focused on coronary and conventional valve surgery, their overlap with interventional alternatives, and briefly assessed surgery for aorta or terminal heart failure. In the field of coronary artery disease (CAD), key manuscripts addressed prognostic implications of invasive treatment options, classically compared modern interventions (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), and addressed technical aspects of CABG. The general direction in 2022 confirms the superiority of CABG over PCI in patients with anatomically complex chronic CAD and supports an infarct-preventative effect as underlying mechanism. In addition, the relevance of proper surgical technique to achieve durable graft patency and the need for optimal medical treatment in CABG patients was impressively illustrated. In structural heart disease, the comparisons of interventional and surgical techniques have been characterized by prognostic and mechanistic investigations underscoring the need for durable treatment effects and reductions of valve-related complications. Early surgery for most valve pathologies appears to provide significant survival advantages, and two publications on the Ross operation prototypically illustrate an inverse association between long-term survival and valve-related complications. For surgical treatment of heart failure, the first xenotransplantation was certainly dominant, and in the aortic surgery field, innovations in arch surgery prevailed. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

Keywords

aortic valve and root - mitral valve surgery - tricuspid valve - aorta/aortic

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 17 February 2023

Accepted: 23 March 2023

Article published online:
17 May 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 De Caterina R, Liga R, Boden WE. Myocardial revascularization in ischaemic cardiomyopathy: routine practice vs. scientific evidence. Eur Heart J 2022; 43 (05) 387-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Doenst T, Bonow RO, Bhatt DL, Falk V, Gaudino M. Improving terminology to describe coronary artery procedures: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 78 (02) 180-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Doenst T, Thiele H, Haasenritter J, Wahlers T, Massberg S, Haverich A. The treatment of coronary artery disease. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2022; 119 (42) 716-723
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gaudino M, Audisio K, Hueb WA. et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease: an individual patient data pooled meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.06.003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Heer T, von Scheidt M, Boening A. et al. Prognostic impact of secondary prevention after coronary artery bypass grafting-insights from the TiCAB trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (03) 62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sandner S, Redfors B, Angiolillo DJ. et al. Association of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor with vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2022; 328 (06) 554-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Senior R, Reynolds HR, Min JK. et al; ISCHEMIA Research Group. Predictors of left main coronary artery disease in the ISCHEMIA trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022; 79 (07) 651-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ono M, Hara H, Gao C. et al; SYNTAX Extended Survival Investigators. Mortality after multivessel revascularisation involving the proximal left anterior descending artery. Heart 2022; 108 (22) 1784-1791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ninomiya K, Serruys PW, Garg S. et al; SYNTAX Extended Survival Investigators. Predicted and observed mortality at 10 years in patients with bifurcation lesions in the SYNTAX trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2022; 15 (12) 1231-1242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gaudino M, Di Franco A, Spadaccio C. et al. Difference in spontaneous myocardial infarction and mortality in percutaneous versus surgical revascularization trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 165 (02) 662-669.e14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J. et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2018; 391 (10124): 939-948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fearon WF, Zimmermann FM, De Bruyne B. et al; FAME 3 Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI as compared with coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2022; 386 (02) 128-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Caldonazo T, Kirov H, Riedel LL, Gaudino M, Doenst T. Comparing CABG and PCI across the globe based on current regional registry evidence. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 22164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Doenst T, Falk V, Gaudino M. The issues with risk and benefit evaluation for invasive treatment of cardiac disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 112 (06) 1733-1735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tam DY, Fang J, Rocha RV. et al. Real-world examination of revascularization strategies for left main coronary disease in Ontario, Canada. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023; 16 (03) 277-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kirov H, Caldonazo T, Rahouma M. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention compared to coronary artery bypass grafting in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Sci Rep 2022; 12 (01) 5138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ram E, Fisman EZ, Tenenbaum A. et al. Revascularization outcomes in diabetic patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome with non-ST elevation. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2022; 21 (01) 175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rocha RV, Fang J, Tam DY. et al. Multiple arterial coronary bypass grafting is associated with better survival compared with second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021 (e-pub ahead of printy). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.12.026
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tasoudis PT, Varvoglis DN, Tzoumas A. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in dialysis-dependent patients: a pooled meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data. J Card Surg 2022; 37 (10) 3365-3373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lin S, Guan C, Wu F. et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with chronic total occlusion and multivessel disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2022; 15 (02) e011312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 El-Andari R, Nagendran J, Hong Y, Ali I, Nagendran J. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with three vessel coronary artery disease: a comparison of centers in the same jurisdiction with differing multidisciplinary heart team approaches. Ann Surg 2022; 278 (01) e190-e195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Alboom M, Browne A, Sheth T. et al. Conduit selection and early graft failure in coronary artery bypass surgery: A post hoc analysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) coronary artery bypass grafting study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; (e-pub ahead of print) DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.05.028.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Ren J, Royse C, Siderakis C, Srivastav N, Royse A. Long-term observational angiographic patency and perfect patency of radial artery compared with saphenous vein or internal mammary artery in coronary bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.08.047
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sandner SE, Donovan TJ, Edelstein S. et al. Effects of the harvesting technique and external stenting on progression of vein graft disease 2 years after coronary artery bypass. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (01) 62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gaudino M, Audisio K, Di Franco A. et al. Radial artery versus saphenous vein versus right internal thoracic artery for coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (01) 62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Urso S, Sadaba R, González Martín JM, Nogales E, Tena MÁ, Portela F. Bilateral internal thoracic artery versus single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery: a double meta-analytic approach. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.03.010
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Doenst T, Sousa-Uva M. How to deal with nonsevere stenoses in coronary artery bypass grafting - a critical perspective on competitive flow and surgical precision. Curr Opin Cardiol 2022; 37 (06) 468-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bianco V, Mulukutla S, Aranda-Michel E. et al. Coronary artery bypass with multiarterial grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention. Ann Thorac Surg 2023; 115 (02) 404-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gaede L, Blumenstein J, Eckel C. et al. Transcatheter-based aortic valve replacement vs. isolated surgical aortic valve replacement in 2020. Clin Res Cardiol 2022; 111 (08) 924-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Myers PO, Beyersdorf F, Sadaba R, Milojevic M. European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Statement regarding the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Coronary Artery Revascularization guidelines. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (01) 62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Chung M, Butala NM, Faridi KF. et al. Days at home after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients. Am Heart J 2023; 255: 125-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Doenst T, Schneider U, Can T. et al. Cardiac surgery 2021 reviewed. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 70 (04) 278-288
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kowalówka AR, Kowalewski M, Wańha W. et al. Surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in low-risk elective patients: analysis of the Aortic Valve Replacement in Elective Patients From the Aortic Valve Multicenter Registry. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.10.026
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 O'Hair D, Yakubov SJ, Grubb KJ. et al. Structural valve deterioration after self-expanding transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation in patients at intermediate or high risk. JAMA Cardiol 2023; 8 (02) 111-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Van Mieghem NM, Deeb GM, Søndergaard L. et al; SURTAVI Trial Investigators. Self-expanding transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: 5-year outcomes of the SURTAVI randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 2022; 7 (10) 1000-1008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mas-Peiro S, Faerber G, Bon D. et al; GARY-Executive Board. Propensity matched comparison of TAVI and SAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease: a subgroup analysis from the German Aortic Valve Registry. Clin Res Cardiol 2022; 111 (12) 1387-1395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Banovic M, Putnik S, Penicka M. et al; AVATAR Trial Investigators. Aortic valve replacement versus conservative treatment in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: the AVATAR trial. Circulation 2022; 145 (09) 648-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Pibarot P, Herrmann HC, Wu C. et al; Heart Valve Collaboratory. Standardized definitions for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction following aortic or mitral valve replacement: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022; 80 (05) 545-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Fukui M, Bapat VN, Garcia S. et al. Deformation of transcatheter aortic valve prostheses: implications for hypoattenuating leaflet thickening and clinical outcomes. Circulation 2022; 146 (06) 480-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Squiers JJ, Robinson NB, Audisio K. et al. Structural valve degeneration of bioprosthetic aortic valves: a network meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023; 166 (01) 52-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Persson M, Glaser N, Nilsson J, Friberg Ö, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Comparison of long-term performance of bioprosthetic aortic valves in Sweden from 2003 to 2018. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5 (03) e220962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Sotade OT, Falster MO, Pearson SA, Jorm LR, Sedrakyan A. Comparison of long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 65 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; (e-pub ahead of print). DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.01.016.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 El-Hamamsy I, Toyoda N, Itagaki S. et al. Propensity-matched comparison of the Ross procedure and prosthetic aortic valve replacement in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022; 79 (08) 805-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Mazine A, David TE, Stoklosa K, Chung J, Lafreniere-Roula M, Ouzounian M. Improved outcomes following the Ross procedure compared with bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022; 79 (10) 993-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Mahboubi R, Kakavand M, Soltesz EG. et al. The decreasing risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement: implications for valve choice and transcatheter therapy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.02.052
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Nappi F, Antoniou GA, Nenna A. et al. Treatment options for ischemic mitral regurgitation: A meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 163 (02) 607-622.e14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Sannino A, Banwait JK, Sudhakaran S. et al. Impact of improving severity of secondary mitral regurgitation on survival. ESC Heart Fail 2023; 10 (01) 742-745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Kar S, Mack MJ, Lindenfeld J. et al. Relationship between residual mitral regurgitation and clinical and quality-of-life outcomes after transcatheter and medical treatments in heart failure: COAPT trial. Circulation 2021; 144 (06) 426-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Brescia AA, Watt TMF, Murray SL. et al; Michigan Mitral Research Group. Rheumatic mitral valve repair or replacement in the valve-in-valve era. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 163 (02) 591-602.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Chen SW, Chen CY, Chien-Chia Wu V. et al. Mitral valve repair versus replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 164 (01) 57-67.e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Muncan B, Amabile A, Kalogeropoulos AP, Geirsson A, Krane M. Midterm outcomes of mitral valve repair versus replacement in elderly patients: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Card Surg 2022; 37 (12) 4391-4396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Sabatino ME, Okoh AK, Chao JC. et al. Early discharge after minimally invasive aortic and mitral valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2022; 114 (01) 91-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Lang M, Vitanova K, Voss B. et al. Beyond the 10-year horizon: mitral valve repair solely with chordal replacement and annuloplasty. Ann Thorac Surg 2023; 115 (01) 96-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Folino G, Salica A, Scaffa R. et al. Mitral repair of myxomatous valves with simple annuloplasty: a follow-up up to 12 years. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 63 (01) 63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Jahanian S, Arghami A, Wittwer ED. et al. Does minimally invasive mitral valve repair mean less postoperative pain?. Ann Thorac Surg 2023; 115 (05) 1172-1178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 McCarthy PM, Cox JL, Kruse J, Elenbaas C, Andrei AC. One hundred percent utilization of a modified CryoMaze III procedure for atrial fibrillation with mitral surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.08.028
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Nasso G, Condello I, Santarpino G. et al. Continuous field flooding versus final one-shot CO2 insufflation in minimally invasive mitral valve repair. J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 17 (01) 279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Gammie JS, Chu MWA, Falk V. et al; CTSN Investigators. Concomitant tricuspid repair in patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med 2022; 386 (04) 327-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Färber G, Marx J, Scherag A. et al. Risk stratification for isolated tricuspid valve surgery assisted using the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022 (e-pub ahead of print). Doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.11.102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Dreyfus J, Audureau E, Bohbot Y. et al. TRI-SCORE: a new risk score for in-hospital mortality prediction after isolated tricuspid valve surgery. Eur Heart J 2022; 43 (07) 654-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Russo M, Di Mauro M, Saitto G. et al. Beating versus arrested heart isolated tricuspid valve surgery: long-term outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 2022; 113 (02) 585-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Huang F, Li X, Zhang Z, Li C, Ren F. Comparison of two surgical approaches for acute type A aortic dissection: hybrid debranching versus total arch replacement. J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 17 (01) 166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Sá MP, Jacquemyn X, Tasoudis PT. et al. Long-term outcomes of total arch replacement versus proximal aortic replacement in acute type A aortic dissection: meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data. J Card Surg 2022; 37 (12) 4256-4266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Eranki A, Merakis M, Williams ML. et al. Outcomes of surgery for acute type A dissection in octogenarians versus non-octogenarians: a systematic review and meta analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 17 (01) 222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Hemli JM, Pupovac SS, Gleason TG. et al; IRAD Investigators. Management of acute type A aortic dissection in the elderly: an analysis from IRAD. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 61 (04) 838-846
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Vento V, Multon S, Ramadan R. et al. Outcomes of urgent aortic wrapping for acute type A aortic dissection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 164 (05) 1412-1420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Ehrlich T, Federspiel JM, Bohle RM, Schäfers HJ. Severe aortic wall degeneration after aortic wrapping. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 60 (02) 425-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Xu X, Wu Y, Wu Z. Revascularization-first strategy versus central repair-first strategy for acute type A aortic dissection complicated with mesenteric malperfusion syndrome: A meta-analysis. J Card Surg 2022; 37 (12) 4427-4433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Griffith BP, Goerlich CE, Singh AK. et al. Genetically modified porcine-to-human cardiac xenotransplantation. N Engl J Med 2022; 387 (01) 35-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Mehra MR, Nayak A, Morris AA. et al. Prediction of survival after implantation of a fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device. JACC Heart Fail 2022; 10 (12) 948-959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar