Abstract
Objectives
Conventional mitral valve surgery through median sternotomy improves long-term survival with acceptable morbidity and mortality. However, less-invasive approaches to mitral valve surgery are now increasingly employed. Whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is superior to conventional surgery is uncertain.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent mitral valve surgery via minithoracotomy or median sternotomy between 2012 and 2018. A propensity score-matched analysis was generated to eliminate differences in relevant preoperative risk factors between the two groups.
Results
Data from 525 patients were evaluated, 189 underwent minithoracotomy and 336 underwent median sternotomy. The 30 day mortality was similar between the minithoracotomy and conventional surgery groups (1 and 3%, respectively; p = 0.25). No differences were seen in the incidence of stroke (p = 1.00), surgical site infections (p = 0.09), or myocardial infarction (p = 0.23), or in total hospital cost (p = 0.48). However, the minimally invasive approach was associated with fewer patients receiving transfusions (59% versus 76% in the conventional group; p = 0.001) or requiring reoperation for bleeding (3% versus 9%, respectively; p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in 5 year survival between the minithoracotomy and conventional surgery groups (93% versus 86%, respectively; p = 0.21) and freedom from mitral valve reoperation (95% versus 94%, respectively; p = 0.79).
Conclusions
In patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, a minimally invasive approach is feasible, safe, and reproducible with excellent short-term outcomes; mid-term outcomes and efficacy were also seen to be comparable to conventional sternotomy.
Is a minimally invasive approach for mitral valve surgery more cost-effective than median sternotomy?: Table 1:
