Abstract We describe one case of iatrogenic rupture of the left ventricle after mitral valve replacement and myectomy of the outflow tract. The cause and site of the rupture could not be identified, neither from the internal nor from the external examination. After unsuccessful use of hemostatic patches in the surface of the ruptured area, wrapping of the ventricles with a surgical gauze pad controlled the hemorrhage, hence saving the patient’s life.

Abstract Introduction: Our objective was to identify preoperative risk factors and to develop and validate a risk-prediction model for the need for blood (erythrocyte concentrate [EC]) transfusion during extracorporeal circulation (ECC) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: This is a retrospective observational study including 530 consecutive patients who underwent isolated on-pump CABG at our Centre over a full two-year period. The risk model was developed and validated by logistic regression and bootstrap analysis. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test, respectively. Results: EC transfusion during ECC was required in 91 patients (17.2%). Of these, the majority were transfused with one (54.9%) or two (41.8%) EC units. The final model covariates (reported as odds ratios; 95% confidence interval) were age (1.07; 1.02-1.13), glomerular filtration rate (0.98; 0.96-1.00), body surface area (0.95; 0.92-0.98), peripheral vascular disease (3.03; 1.01-9.05), cerebrovascular disease (4.58; 1.29-16.18), and hematocrit (0.55; 0.48-0.63). The risk model developed has an excellent discriminatory power (AUC: 0,963). The results of the H-L test showed that the model predicts accurately both on average and across the ranges of deciles of risk. Conclusions: A risk-prediction model for EC transfusion during ECC was developed, which performed adequately in terms of discrimination, calibration, and stability over a wide spectrum of risk. It can be used as an instrument to provide accurate information about the need for EC transfusion during ECC, and as a valuable adjunct for local improvement of clinical practice. OR=odds ratio Key Question: What is the risk of the need for use of erythrocyte concentrate (EC) during cardiopulmonary bypass? Key Findings: Risk factors with the greatest prediction for EC transfusion. Take-Home Message: The implementation of this model would be an important step in optimizing and improving the quality of surgery.

Abstract Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) remains the most common cardiovascular disease in young adults and adolescents in need of heart surgery in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The mean age of patients is 20-25 years, often much younger. By contrast, the few patients with chronic RHD in developed countries present a mean age of around 55 years. It is absolutely fundamental to differentiate these two types of population. Pathology, lesions and surgical methods are different, and the results should not be compared. It is not all the same! A certain enthusiasm for mitral repair has recently surged, with several reports showing excellent results in children and young adults, resulting from the renewed interest of cardiac surgeons, also based on new and modified techniques developed in the meantime. While surgery is easily accessible to patients in developed countries, the situation in LMICs is often dramatic, with countries where there is a complete absence of or few surgical facilities absolutely unable to meet gigantic demands. Many foreign surgical teams conduct humanitarian missions in several of these countries. They are just a “drop of water in the ocean” of needs. In some cases, however, these missions led to the establishment of local teams that now work independently and, in some cases, outperform the foreign teams still visiting.

Objetivo: Avaliar os resultados imediatos e de longo prazo do transplante cardíaco em dois níveis diferentes de urgência. Métodos: De novembro de 2003 a dezembro de 2012, 228 pacientes foram submetidos a transplante cardíaco. Crianças e os pacientes em choque cardiogênico foram excluídos do estudo. Do grupo final (n=212), 58 pacientes (27%) estavam hospitalizados e em suporte inotrópico (Grupo A), enquanto 154 (73%) aguardavam transplante em casa (Grupo B). Os pacientes do Grupo A eram mais jovens (52,0±11,3 vs. 55,2±10,4 anos, P=0,050) e tinham menor tempo de espera (29,4±43,8 vs. 48,8±45,2 dias, P=0,006). Não foram encontradas diferenças entre os sexos ou outras comorbidades. Níveis de hemoglobina foram menores e de creatinina superiores no Grupo A. As características dos doadores foram semelhantes. O acompanhamento foi de 4,5±2,7 anos. Resultados: Não foram observadas diferenças no tempo de isquemia (89,1 ± 37,0 vs. 91,5 ± 34,5 min, P=0,660) ou no suporte inotrópico (13,8% vs. 11,0%, P=0,579), nem na incidência de rejeição celular ou humoral e de vasculopatia do enxerto. Incidência de diabetes de novo no início do primeiro ano foi um pouco maior no Grupo A (15,5% vs. 11,7%, P=0,456), e esses pacientes apresentaram maior risco de infecção grave (22,4% vs. 12,3%, P=0,068). A mortalidade hospitalar foi semelhante (3,4% vs. 4,5%, P=0,724), bem como a sobrevida a longo prazo (7,8±0,5 vs. 7,4±0,3 anos). Conclusões: Os resultados obtidos em pacientes hospitalizados em suporte inotrópico foram semelhantes aos de pacientes que aguardam o transplante em casa. Alocação de doadores para o primeiro grupo não parece comprometer o benefício do transplante. Esses resultados podem não ser estendidos aos pacientes mais críticos.

Objective: To evaluate immediate and long-term results of cardiac transplantation at two different levels of urgency. Methods: From November 2003 to December 2012, 228 patients underwent cardiac transplantation. Children and patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded from the study. From the final group (n=212), 58 patients (27%) were hospitalized under inotropic support (Group A), while 154 (73%) were awaiting transplantation at home (Group B). Patients in Group A were younger (52.0±11.3 vs. 55.2±10.4 years, P=0.050) and had shorter waiting times (29.4±43.8 vs. 48.8±45.2 days; P=0.006). No difference was found for sex or other comorbidities. Haemoglobin was lower and creatinine higher in Group A. The characteristics of the donors were similar. Follow-up was 4.5±2.7 years. Results: No differences were found in time of ischemia (89.1±37.0 vs. 91.5±34.5 min, P=0.660) or inotropic support (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.579), neither in the incidence of cellular or humoral rejection and of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. De novo diabetes de novo in the first year was slightly higher in Group A (15.5% vs. 11.7%, P=0.456), and these patients were at increased risk of serious infection (22.4% vs. 12.3%, P=0.068). Hospital mortality was similar (3.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.724), as well as long-term survival (7.8±0.5 vs. 7.4±0.3 years). Conclusions: The results obtained in patients hospitalized under inotropic support were similar to those of patients awaiting transplantation at home. Allocation of donors to the first group does not seem to compromise the benefit of transplantation. These results may not be extensible to more critical patients.