Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 70(04): 278-288
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1744264
Review Article

Cardiac Surgery 2021 Reviewed

Torsten Doenst
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Ulrich Schneider
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Tolga Can
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Tulio Caldonazo
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Mahmoud Diab
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Thierry Siemeni
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Gloria Färber
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany
,
Hristo Kirov
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Jena, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

PubMed displayed more than 35,000 hits for the search term “cardiac surgery AND 2021.” We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. As in recent years, we reviewed the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with their interventional alternatives. COVID reduced cardiac surgical activity around the world. In the coronary field, the FAME 3 trial dominated publications by practically repeating SYNTAX, but with modern stents and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). PCI was again unable to achieve non-inferiority compared with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with triple-vessel disease. Survival advantages of CABG over PCI could be linked to a reduction in myocardial infarctions and current terminology was criticized because the term “myocardial revascularization” is not precise and does not reflect the infarct-preventing collateralization effect of CABG. In structural heart disease, new guidelines were published, providing upgrades of interventional treatments of both aortic and mitral valve disease. While for aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) received a primary recommendation in older and high-risk patients; recommendations for transcatheter mitral edge-to-edge treatment were upgraded for patients considered inappropriate for surgery. For heart team discussions it is important to know that classic aortic valve replacement currently provides strong signals (from registry and randomized evidence) for a survival advantage over TAVI after 5 years. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It can neither be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

Keywords

coronary artery bypass grafts surgeryCABG - aortic valve replacement - mitral valve surgery - tricuspid valve

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 24 January 2022

Accepted: 10 February 2022

Article published online:
10 May 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Nguyen TC, Thourani VH, Nissen AP. et al. The effect of COVID-19 on adult cardiac surgery in the United States in 717 103 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2022; Mar; 113 (03) 738-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Beckmann A, Meyer R, Lewandowski J, Markewitz A, Gummert J. German Heart Surgery Report 2020: the Annual Updated Registry of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 69 (04) 294-307
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fearon WF, Zimmermann FM, De Bruyne B. et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI as compared with coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2022; Jan 13; 386 (02) 128-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Doenst T, Haverich A, Serruys P. et al. PCI and CABG for treating stable coronary artery disease: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73 (08) 964-976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.04.062.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V. Coronary plaque disruption. Circulation 1995; 92 (03) 657-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019; 40 (02) 87-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
  • 9 Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR. et al; ISCHEMIA Research Group. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (15) 1395-1407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK. et al; COURAGE Trial Research Group. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007; 356 (15) 1503-1516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sud M, Han L, Koh M. et al. Association between adherence to fractional flow reserve treatment thresholds and major adverse cardiac events in patients with coronary artery disease. JAMA 2020; 324 (23) 2406-2414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kawashima H, Serruys PW, Ono M. et al; SYNTAX Extended Survival Investigators. Impact of optimal medical therapy on 10-year mortality after coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 78 (01) 27-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pan E, Nielsen SJ, Mennander A. et al. Statins for secondary prevention and major adverse events after coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.08.088.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sabatine MS, Bergmark BA, Murphy SA. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet 2021; 398 (10318): 2247-2257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 De Filippo O, Di Franco A, Boretto P. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery surgery for left main disease according to lesion site: a meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.08.040.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yamamoto K, Natsuaki M, Morimoto T. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with versus without chronic kidney disease. Am J Cardiol 2021; 145: 37-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wang R, Serruys PW, Gao C. et al. Ten-year all-cause death after percutaneous or surgical revascularization in diabetic patients with complex coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2021; 43 (01) 56-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hara H, Watanabe H, Esaki J. et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians with complex coronary artery disease. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1007/s11748-021-01711-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Völz S, Redfors B, Angerås O. et al. Long-term mortality in patients with ischaemic heart failure revascularized with coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). Eur Heart J 2021; 42 (27) 2657-2664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Caldonazo T, Kirov H, Rahouma M. et al. Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.03.077.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gaudino M, Sanna T, Ballman KV. et al; PALACS Investigators. Posterior left pericardiotomy for the prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: an adaptive, single-centre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2021; 398 (10316): 2075-2083
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Whitlock RP, Belley-Cote EP, Paparella D. et al; LAAOS III Investigators. Left atrial appendage occlusion during cardiac surgery to prevent stroke. N Engl J Med 2021; 384 (22) 2081-2091
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Soltesz EG, Dewan KC, Anderson LH, Ferguson MA, Gillinov AM. Improved outcomes in CABG patients with atrial fibrillation associated with surgical left atrial appendage exclusion. J Card Surg 2021; 36 (04) 1201-1208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Whitlock EL, Diaz-Ramirez LG, Smith AK. et al. Association of coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention with memory decline in older adults undergoing coronary revascularization. JAMA 2021; 325 (19) 1955-1964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bruno F, D'Ascenzo F, Marengo G. et al. Fractional flow reserve guided versus angiographic guided surgical revascularization: a meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2021; 98 (01) E18-E23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Glineur D, Grau JB, Etienne PY. et al. Impact of preoperative fractional flow reserve on arterial bypass graft anastomotic function: the IMPAG trial. Eur Heart J 2019; 40 (29) 2421-2428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Davierwala PM, Gao C, Thuijs D. et al. Single or multiple arterial bypass graft surgery vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2021; DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab537.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Thuijs D, Davierwala P, Milojevic M. et al. Long-term survival after coronary bypass surgery with multiple versus single arterial grafts. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab392.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Arbeus M, Souza D, Geijer H. et al. Five-year patency for the no-touch saphenous vein and the left internal thoracic artery in on- and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Card Surg 2021; 36 (10) 3702-3708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tian M, Wang X, Sun H. et al. No-touch versus conventional vein harvesting techniques at 12 months after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: multicenter randomized, controlled trial. Circulation 2021; 144 (14) 1120-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Glineur D, Hanet C. Competitive flow in coronary bypass surgery: is it a problem?. Curr Opin Cardiol 2012; 27 (06) 620-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F. et al; ESC/EACTS Scientific Document Group, ESC Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2021; 2021: ehab395
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Barili F, Freemantle N, Pilozzi Casado A. et al. Mortality in trials on transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2020; 58 (02) 221-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Doenst T, Caldonazo T, Schneider U. et al. Cardiac Surgery 2020 Reviewed. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729762.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Makkar RR, Thourani VH, Mack MJ. et al; PARTNER 2 Investigators. Five-year outcomes of transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (09) 799-809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Van Mieghem NM. 5-Year Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes from the Randomized SURTAVI Trial. TCT Conference; 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Jørgensen TH, Thyregod HGH, Ihlemann N. et al. Eight-year outcomes for patients with aortic valve stenosis at low surgical risk randomized to transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J 2021; 42 (30) 2912-2919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Beyersdorf F, Bauer T, Freemantle N. et al; GARY Executive Board. Five-year outcome in 18 010 patients from the German Aortic Valve Registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 60 (05) 1139-1146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Okuno T, Tomii D, Heg D. et al. Five-year outcomes of mild paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention 2021; DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00784.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Laakso T, Laine M, Moriyama N. et al. Impact of paravalvular regurgitation on the mid-term outcome after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2020; 58 (06) 1145-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Fujita B, Schmidt T, Bleiziffer S. et al; GARY Executive Board. Impact of new pacemaker implantation following surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement on 1-year outcome. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2020; 57 (01) 151-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Schoechlin S, Minners J, Schulz U. et al. Three-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: comparison of a restrictive versus a liberal strategy for pacemaker implantation. Heart Rhythm 2021; 18 (12) 2040-2047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Rück A, Saleh N, Glaser N. Outcomes following permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: SWEDEHEART observational study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021; 14 (19) 2173-2181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Woldendorp K, Doyle MP, Black D. et al. Subclinical valve thrombosis in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 162 (05) 1491-1499.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Valle JA, Li Z, Kosinski AS. et al. Dissemination of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 78 (08) 794-806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Russo MJ, Thourani VH, Cohen DJ. et al. Minimally invasive versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.11.048.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Doenst T, Bargenda S, Kirov H. et al. Cardiac surgery 2019 reviewed. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 68 (05) 363-376
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Tkebuchava S, Färber G, Sponholz C. et al. Minimally-invasive parasternal aortic valve replacement-A slow learning curve towards improved outcomes. J Card Surg 2020; 35 (03) 544-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Mack MJ, Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT. et al; COAPT Investigators. 3-year outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve repair in patients with heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 77 (08) 1029-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Grayburn PA, Sannino A, Packer M. Proportionate and disproportionate functional mitral regurgitation: a new conceptual framework that reconciles the results of the MITRA-FR and COAPT Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2019; 12 (02) 353-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT, Grayburn PA. et al; Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) Investigators. Association of effective regurgitation orifice area to left ventricular end-diastolic volume ratio with transcatheter mitral valve repair outcomes: a secondary analysis of the COAPT trial. JAMA Cardiol 2021; 6 (04) 427-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Hagendorff A, Knebel F, Helfen A, Stöbe S, Doenst T, Falk V. Disproportionate mitral regurgitation: another myth? A critical appraisal of echocardiographic assessment of functional mitral regurgitation. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2021; 37 (01) 183-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Chikwe J, O'Gara P, Fremes S. et al. Mitral surgery after transcatheter edge-to-edge repair: Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database Analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 78 (01) 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Kaneko T, Hirji S, Zaid S. et al; CUTTING-EDGE Investigators. Mitral valve surgery after transcatheter edge-to-edge repair: mid-term outcomes from the CUTTING-EDGE International Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021; 14 (18) 2010-2021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Deja MA, Malinowski M, Widenka K. et al. Repair or replacement for secondary mitral regurgitation: results from Polish National Registry. Ann Thorac Surg 2022; 113: 146-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Di Tommaso E, Rapetto F, Guida GA, Zakkar M, Bruno VD. Benefits of mitral valve repair over replacement in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Card Surg 2021; 36 (07) 2524-2530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Fan Q, Li X, Cao G, Yu P, Zhang F. Outcome of mitral valve repair or replacement for non-ischemic mitral regurgitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 16 (01) 175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Faerber G, Tkebuchava S, Diab M, Schulze C, Bauer M, Doenst T. Minimally-invasive mitral valve repair of symmetric and asymmetric Barlow’s disease. Clin Res Cardiol 2021; 110 (12) 1881-1889
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Sakaguchi T, Hiraoka A, Totsugawa T. et al. Clinical impact of the repair technique for posterior mitral leaflet prolapse: resect or respect?. J Card Surg 2021; 36 (03) 971-977
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Rogers JH, Bolling SF. Transseptal chordal replacement: early experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 10 (01) 50-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Papadimas E, Tan YK, Choong AMTL, Kofidis T, Teoh KLK. Anticoagulation after isolated mitral valve repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Heart Lung Circ 2021; 30 (02) 247-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Faerber G, Marx J, Scherag A. et al. Risk stratification for isolated tricuspid valve surgery assisted by model of end-stage liver disease score. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.11.102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Kodali S, Hahn RT, Eleid MF. et al; CLASP TR EFS Investigators. Feasibility study of the transcatheter valve repair system for severe tricuspid regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 77 (04) 345-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Lurz P, Stephan von Bardeleben R, Weber M. et al; TRILUMINATE Investigators. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for treatment of tricuspid regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021; 77 (03) 229-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Gammie JS, Chu MWA, Falk V. et al. Concomitant tricuspid repair in patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med 2022; Jan 27; 386 (04) 327-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Chancellor WZ, Mehaffey JH, Beller JP. et al. Impact of tricuspid regurgitation with and without repair during aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 162 (01) 44-50.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Bustamante-Munguira J, Alvarez P, Romero B. et al. Impact of tricuspid regurgitation severity and repair on aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.03.102.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Malaisrie SC, Szeto WY, Halas M. et al; AATS Clinical Practice Standards Committee: Adult Cardiac Surgery. 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery expert consensus document: surgical treatment of acute type A aortic dissection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 162 (03) 735-758.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 White A, Bozso SJ, Ouzounian M, Chu MWA, Moon MC. Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative. Acute type A aortic dissection and the consequences of a patent false lumen. JTCVS Tech 2021; 9: 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Ismaguilova A, Martufi G, Gregory AJ. et al. Multidimensional analysis of descending aortic growth after acute type A aortic dissection. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 111 (02) 615-621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Norton EL, Wu X, Kim KM. et al. Is hemiarch replacement adequate in acute type A aortic dissection repair in patients with arch branch vessel dissection without cerebral malperfusion?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 161 (03) 873-884.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Zhang B, Guo S, Ning J, Li Y, Liu Z. Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device versus orthotopic heart transplantation in adults with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 10 (02) 209-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar