scholarly journals A propensity matched analysis of robotic, minimally invasive, and conventional mitral valve surgery

Heart ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (23) ◽  
pp. 1970-1975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert B Hawkins ◽  
J Hunter Mehaffey ◽  
Matthew G Mullen ◽  
Wiley L Nifong ◽  
W Randolph Chitwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Mitral Valve Surgery ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Robotic Approach ◽  
Regional Society ◽  
Average Hospital ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Mitral Surgery

ObjectivesInstitutional studies suggest robotic mitral surgery may be associated with superior outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic, minimally invasive (mini), and conventional mitral surgery.MethodsA total of 2300 patients undergoing non-emergent isolated mitral valve operations from 2011 to 2016 were extracted from a regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients were stratified by approach: robotic (n=372), mini (n=576) and conventional sternotomy (n=1352). To account for preoperative differences, robotic cases were propensity score matched (1:1) to both conventional and mini approaches.ResultsThe robotic cases were well matched to the conventional (n=314) and mini (n=295) cases with no significant baseline differences. Rates of mitral repair were high in the robotic and mini cohorts (91%), but significantly lower with conventional (76%, P<0.0001) despite similar rates of degenerative disease. All procedural times were longest in the robotic cohort, including operative time (224 vs 168 min conventional, 222 vs 180 min mini; all P<0.0001). The robotic approach had comparable outcomes to the conventional approach except there were fewer discharges to a facility (7% vs 15%, P=0.001) and 1 less day in the hospital (P<0.0001). However, compared with the mini approach, the robotic approach had more transfusions (15% vs 5%, P<0.0001), higher atrial fibrillation rates (26% vs 18%, P=0.01), and 1 day longer average hospital stay (P=0.02).ConclusionDespite longer procedural times, robotic and mini patients had similar complication rates with higher repair rates and shorter length of stay metrics compared with conventional surgery. However, the robotic approach was associated with higher atrial fibrillation rates, more transfusions and longer postoperative stays compared with minimally invasive approach.

Myocardial Protection in Mitral Valve Surgery: Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Approach and Standard Sternotomy

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 656-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Sébastien Lebon ◽  
Pierre Couture ◽  
Annik Fortier ◽  
Antoine G. Rochon ◽  
Christian Ayoub ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Myocardial Protection ◽  
Mitral Valve Surgery ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive Approach ◽  
Invasive Approach

scholarly journals Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. An anesthesiologist''s viewpoint

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. A. Shmyrev ◽  
A. V. Bogachev-prokofev ◽  
V. V. Lomivorotov ◽  
D. N. Ponomarev ◽  
P. P. Perovskiy
Keyword(s):  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Fatal Outcome ◽  
Median Sternotomy ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Mitral Valve Surgery ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Valve Repair ◽  
Invasive Group

We conducted a retrospective comparative analysis of 75 patients undergoing video-assisted mitral valve repair with right minithoracotomy over a period from November 2011 to August 2013. The control group comprised 71 patients operated on mitral valve by using median sternotomy during the same period. Median (25th; 75th) times of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamping were significantly longer in the minimally invasive group (180 [139; 224] and 111 [87; 145] min, respectively) as compared to the controls (84 [69; 117] and 62 [49; 81 ] min, respectively), p<0.01. Fatal outcome occurred in 2 (2.7%) cases in the minimally invasive group versus none in the controls. In both cases death resulted from intraoperative aortic dissection. While ventilation time and intensive care unit stay were comparable across the groups, postoperative respiratory failure occurred in 6 (8%) cases in the minimally invasive group versus none in the controls (p<0.05). No other significant differences in the postoperative course were observed between the groups. The results of the present study are generally consistent with the world's tendencies. On the other hand, complication rates observed in the minimally invasive group present a considerable economic burden and require substantial human resources in the postoperative period.

scholarly journals Video-assisted Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery versus Conventional Mitral Surgery in Rheumatic Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayman Badawy ◽  
Mohamed Alaa Nady ◽  
Mohamed Ahmed Khalil Salama Ayyad ◽  
Ahmed Elminshawy
Keyword(s):  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Mitral Valve Replacement ◽  
Mitral Valve Surgery ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Video Assisted ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Background: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery became an attractive option because of its cosmetic advantages over the conventional approach. The superiority of the minimally invasive approach regarding other aspects is still debatable. The aim of our study was to determine the potential benefits of minimally invasive mitral valve replacement with intraoperative video assistance over conventional surgery. Methods: This is a single-center prospective cohort study that included 60 patients with rheumatic heart disease who underwent mitral valve replacement. Patients were divided into two groups: group (A) included patients who had conventional sternotomy (n= 30), and group (B) included patients who had video-assisted minimally invasive mitral valve replacement (n= 30). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between both groups. Results: Mortality occurred in one patient in the group (A). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was 118.93 ± 29.84 minutes vs. 64.73 ± 19.16 minutes in group B and A respectively (p< 0.001), and ischemic time was 102.27 ± 30.03 minutes vs. 53.67± 18.46 minutes in group B and A respectively (P < 0.001). Ventilation time was 2.77± 2.27 vs. 6.28 ± 4.48 hours in group B and A respectively (p< 0.001) and blood transfusion was 0.50 ± 0.63 vs. 2.83 ± 1.34 units in group B and A respectively (p< 0.001).  ICU stay was 1.73 ± 0.64 days in the group (B) vs. 4.47 ± 0.94 days in group A (p< 0.001). Postoperative bleeding was 353.33 ± 146.77 ml in the group (B) vs. 841.67 ± 302.03 ml in group A (p <0.001). No conversion to full sternotomy was reported in group B. In group (B), two cases (6.6%) required re-exploration for bleeding vs. four cases (13.2%) in group (A) (p=0.67). The hospital stay was 6.13 ± 1.59 days in the group (B) vs. 13.27 ± 7.62 days in group A (p< 0.001). Four cases (13.3%) developed mediastinitis in group A and in the group (B), there was one case of acute right lower limb embolic ischemia. Conclusion: Video-assisted minimally invasive mitral operations could be a safe alternative to conventional sternotomy with the potential of lesser morbidity and earlier hospital discharge.

Abstract 14956: Improved Operative Efficiency for Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery at a Low-volume Center

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Fowler ◽  
Jeffrey B MacLeod ◽  
christie aguiar ◽  
Alexandra M Yip ◽  
zlatko pozeg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Mitral Valve Surgery ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Low Volume ◽  
Skin To Skin

Introduction: When implementing a minimally invasive cardiac surgery program, increased surgical times may serve as a deterrent. Results demonstrating parity in operative times between minimally invasive (MIMVR) and conventional mitral valve replacement/repair (CMVR) have been limited to high-volume centers. The purpose of this study was to examine operative efficiency for MIMVR in a low-volume center. Methods: All patients having undergone non-emergent, isolated MIMVR or CMVR at the New Brunswick Heart Centre from 2011-2017 were considered. Detailed peri-operative data, including cross clamp (XC), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), skin-to-skin (SS) and total operative (TO) times, were collected. Patients were assigned to one of 3 eras: 2011-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2017. Unadjusted comparisons were made between MIMVR and CMVR over the entire study period and within each era. Results: A total of 168 patients were included (MIMVR: 64; CMVR: 104). There was an increase in the number of MIMVR cases over time (2011-2013: 19; 2014-2015: 17; 2016-2017: 28). Patients undergoing MIMVR were less likely to be ≥70years (29.7% vs. 47.1%, p=0.04) and to have had NYHA-IV symptoms (17.2% vs. 41.3%, p=0.002), previous cardiac surgery (4.7% vs. 23.1%, p=0.003) or urgent presentation (12.5% vs. 35.6%, p=0.002). Intra-operatively, MIMVR patients were more likely to have undergone a mitral valve repair (65.1% vs. 29.1%, p<0.0001). No differences were noted in rates of in-hospital mortality (0.0% vs. 5.1%, p=0.29). Median operative times were uniformly longer among MIMVR patients between 2011-2013. However, in 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, these times improved to the point where no significant differences in operative efficiency were noted (Figure). Conclusions: Improved operative efficiency may be safely achieved for MIMVR in a low-volume center. The results of this study should encourage low-volume centers to adopt a minimally invasive approach to isolated mitral valve surgery.

Obesity Should Not Deter a Surgeon from Selecting a Minimally Invasive Approach for Mitral Valve Surgery

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Reser ◽  
Simon Sündermann ◽  
Jürg Grünenfelder ◽  
Jacques Scherman ◽  
Burkhardt Seifert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Mitral Valve Surgery ◽  
Normal Weight ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Cerebrovascular Event ◽  
Minimally Invasive Approach ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Invasive Approach ◽  
Postoperative Ventilation

Objective Obesity is highly prevalent in modern patient populations. Several studies have published conflicting outcomes after minimally invasive surgery with regard to morbidity and mortality. Some instances consider obesity as a relative contraindication for this approach because of inadequate exposure of the surgical field. Our aim was to investigate the outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through a right lateral minithoracotomy in patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or greater. Methods We conducted a retrospective database review between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011. Preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and follow-up data of 225 consecutive patients were collected. Results The patients were stratified according to their BMI: 108 had a normal weight with a BMI of lower than 25 kg/m2 (18–24), 90 were overweight with a BMI of 25 to 29 kg/m2, and 27 were obese with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 (30–41) or greater. Statistical analysis showed significantly longer ventilation times in the obese group, whereas all other variables were similar. Survival, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event-free survival, valve competency, and freedom from reoperation were also comparable. Conclusions Our data suggest that obesity should not deter a surgeon from selecting a minimally invasive approach. Despite longer postoperative ventilation times, a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or greater does not influence short- and medium-term outcome. Obese patients may even benefit from this approach because it avoids the need for sternotomy and therefore reduces the risk for sternal wound infection.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive approach for aortic and mitral valve surgery

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 1204-1205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Lio ◽  
Antonio Miceli ◽  
Matteo Ferrarini ◽  
Mattia Glauber
Keyword(s):  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Mitral Valve Surgery ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive Approach ◽  
Invasive Approach

scholarly journals Minimally invasive versus sternotomy mitral valve surgery when initiating a minimally invasive programme

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1168-1174
Author(s):  
Mikael Kastengren ◽  
Peter Svenarud ◽  
Göran Källner ◽  
Anders Franco-Cereceda ◽  
Jan Liska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mitral Valve ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Mitral Valve Surgery ◽  
Valve Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive Procedures ◽  
Invasive Procedures ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Invasive Approach

Abstract OBJECTIVES An increasing number of mitral valve operations are performed using minimally invasive procedures. The initiation of a minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programme constitutes a unique opportunity to study outcome differences in patients with similar characteristics operated on through a sternotomy versus a minimally invasive procedure. The goal of this study was to compare short-term outcomes of patients undergoing mitral valve surgery before versus those having surgery after the introduction of a minimally invasive programme. METHODS The single-centre study included mitral valve procedures performed through a sternotomy or with a minimally invasive approach between January 2012 and May 2019. Propensity score matching was performed to reduce selection bias. RESULTS A total of 605 patients (294 sternotomy, 311 minimally invasive) who underwent mitral valve surgery were included in the analysis. Propensity score matching resulted in 251 matched pairs. In the propensity score-matched analysis, minimally invasive procedures had longer extracorporeal circulation duration (149 ± 52 vs 133 ± 57 min; P = 0.001) but shorter aortic occlusion duration (97 ± 36 vs 105 ± 40 min, P = 0.03). Minimally invasive procedures were associated with a lower incidence of reoperation for bleeding (2.4% vs 7.2%; P = 0.012), lower need for transfusion (19.1% vs 30.7%; P = 0.003) and shorter in-hospital stay (5.0 ± 2.7 vs 7.2 ± 4.6 days; P &lt; 0.001). The 30-day mortality was low in both groups (0.4% vs 0.8%; P = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery was associated with short-term outcomes comparable to those with procedures performed through a sternotomy. Initiating a minimally invasive mitral valve programme with a limited number of surgeons and a well-executed institutional selection strategy did not confer an increased risk for adverse events.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document