PDF icon Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2025; 73(05): 332-345
DOI: 10.1055/a-2548-4098
Review Article

Cardiac Surgery 2024 Reviewed

Hristo Kirov 
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Tulio Caldonazo
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Murat Mukharyamov
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Sultonbek Toshmatov
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Philine Fleckenstein
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Timur Kyashif
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Thierry Siemeni
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Torsten Doenst
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category
Preview

Abstract

For the 11th consecutive time, we systematically reviewed the cardio-surgical literature for the past year (2024), using the PRISMA approach for a results-oriented summary. In 2024, the discussion on the value of randomized and registry evidence increased, triggered by consistent findings in the field of coronary artery disease (CAD) and discrepant results in structural heart disease. The literature in 2024 again confirmed the excellent long-term outcomes of CABG compared with PCI in different scenarios, generating further validation for the CABG advantage reported in randomized studies. This has been reflected in the new guidelines for chronic CAD in 2024. Two studies indicate novel perspectives for CABG, showing that cardiac shockwave therapy in CABG improves myocardial function in ischemic hearts and that CABG guided by computed tomography is safe and feasible. For aortic stenosis, an early advantage for transcatheter (TAVI) compared with surgical (SAVR) treatment has found more support; however, long-term TAVI results keep being challenged, this year by new FDA and registry data in favor of SAVR. For failed aortic valves, redo-SAVR showed superior results compared with valve-in-valve TAVI. In the mitral field, studies showed short-term noninferiority for transcatheter treatment compared with surgery for secondary mitral regurgitation (MR), and significant long-term survival benefit in registries with surgery for primary MR. Finally, surgery was associated with better survival compared with medical therapy for acute type A aortic intramural hematoma. 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 patient-specific decision-making.

Keywords

coronary artery bypass graft surgery - CABG - aortic valve and root - mitral valve surgery - tricuspid valve

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 27 January 2025

Accepted: 27 February 2025

Article published online:
27 March 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany