Mitral valve regurgitation (MR) is a common valvular disorder occurring in up to 10% of the general population. Mitral valve reconstructive strategies may address any of the components, annulus, leaflets and chords, involved in the valvular competence. The classical repair technique involves the resection of the prolapsing tissue. Chordal replacement was introduced already in the ’60, but in the mid ’80, some surgeons started to use expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) Gore-Tex sutures. In the last years, artificial chords have been exploited because of transcatheter techniques such as NeoChord DS 1000 (Neochord, USA) and Harpoon TSD-5. The first step is to achieve a good exposure of the papillary muscles that before approaching the implant of the artificial chords. Then, the chords are attached to the papillary muscle, with or without the use of supportive pledgets. The techniques to correctly implant artificial chords are many and might vary considerably from one center to another, but they can be summarized into three big families of suturing techniques: single, running or loop. Regardless of how to anchor to the mitral leaflet, the real challenge that many surgeons have taken on, giving rise to some very creative solutions, has been to establish an adequate length of the chords. It can be established basing on anatomically healthy chords, but it is important to bear in mind that surgeons work on the mitral valve when the heart is arrested in diastole, so this length could fail to replicate the required length in the full, beating heart. Hence, some surgeons suggested techniques to overcome this problem. Herein, we aimed to describe the current use of artificial chords in real world surgery, summarizing all the tips and tricks.

The meta-analysis by He and collaborators [has the worth to cover, as much as possible, a gap of scientific evidence where conducting a randomized trial appears very complex for ethical and logistical reasons. The authors concluded that mitral valve repair (MVP) provide better pooled results, both early and late, with respect to mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, the superiority of MVP is driven by some single large cohort-studies where surgeons had wide experience in the field of MVP for IE. This finding is also confirmed by other studies. But if mitral repair produces such a better short- and long-term survival than replacement, why are there no clear indications from consensus and guidelines pushing surgeons toward the pursuit of a reconstructive procedure at almost any cost? We wonder but to repair or not to repair, is that really the question? The AATS consensus suggests to repair “whenever possible” but without providing more specific indications. If the two primary goals of surgery are total removal of infected tissues and reconstruction of cardiac morphology, including repair or replacement of the affected valve(s), probably MVP as to perform in case of less extensive tissue detriment by the infection. In more wide valve involvement, MVP may be the choice but only in very expert hands and in Centers with very large volume of valve repairing. This decision cannot therefore be the result of the choice of an individual but must derive from a careful multidisciplinary discussion to be held in an EndoTeam.

It is well known that the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) should be the first conduit of choice. Similarly, especially in patients younger than 70 years, other conduits should be search among arterial grafts such as right internal mammary artery (RIMA) or radial artery (RA). If the RA can be harvested in the meanwhile of LIMA harvesting without time consuming, it is well established that former one has to be grafted only on presence of a good run-off. One of the main criticisms moved to the use of RIMA are linked to technical difficulties in its harvesting it. Edgar Aranda-Michel and coworkers tried to answer to the age-old question is “RIMA has to be used in situ or free-graft?” In a retrospective study on 667 patients (442 had free RIMA and 245 had free RIMA) that were also matched through propensity analysis (202 patients per group), they did not find any differences between the two groups in the major outcomes, including heart failure specific readmissions. This finding is consistent with the literature, hence the take-home message is whatever happens, two mammary is better than one.

OBJECTIVE. For many years, functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR) was considered negligible after treatment of left-sided heart valve surgery. The aim of the present network meta-analysis is to summarize the results of four approaches in order to establish the possible gold standard. METHODS A systematic search was performed to identify all publications reporting the outcomes of four approach for FTR, not tricuspid annuloplasty (no TA), suture annuloplasty (SA), flexible (FRA), rigid rings (RRA). All studies reporting at least one the four endpoints (early and late mortality, early and late moderate or more TFR) were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS There were 31 included studies with 9,663 patients. Aggregate early mortality was 5.3% no TA, 7.2% SA, 6.6% FRA and 6.4% RRA; Early TR moderate-or-more was 9.6%, 4.8%, 4.6% and 3.8%; Late mortality was 22.5%, 18.2%, 11.9% and 11.9%; Late TR moderate-or-more was 27.9%, 18.3%, 14.3% and 6.4%. Rigid or semirigid ring annuloplasty was the most effective approach for decreasing the risk of late moderate or more FTR (–85% vs. no TA; –64% vs. SA; –32% vs. FRA). Concerning late mortality, no significant differences were found among different surgical approaches, however, flexible or rigid rings reduced significantly the risk of late mortality (78% and 47%, respectively) compared with not performing TA mortality. No differences were found for early outcomes. CONCLUSIONS. Ring annuloplasty seems to offer better late outcomes compare to either suture annuloplasty or not performing TA. In particular rigid or semirigid rings provides more stable FTR across time.