Minimally Invasive Surgical Pulmonary Embolectomy

Abstract

Objective

Surgical pulmonary embolectomy has gained increasing popularity over the past decade with multiple series reporting excellent outcomes in the treatment of submassive pulmonary embolism. However, a significant barrier to the broader adoption of surgical pulmonary embolectomy remains the large incision and long recovery after a full sternotomy. We report the safety and efficacy of using a minimally invasive approach to surgical pulmonary embolectomy.

Methods

All consecutive patients undergoing surgical pulmonary embolectomy for a submassive pulmonary embolism (2015–2017) were reviewed. Patients were stratified as conventional or minimally invasive. The minimally invasive approach included a 5- to 7-cm skin incision with upper hemisternotomy to the third intercostal space. The primary outcomes were in-hospital and 90-day survival.

Results

Thirty patients (conventional = 20, minimally invasive = 10) were identified. Operative time was similar between the two groups, but cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly longer in the minimally invasive group (58 vs 94 minutes, P = 0.04). While ventilator time and intensive care unit length of stay were similar between groups, hospital length of stay was 4.5 days shorter in the minimally invasive group, and there was a trend toward less blood product use. In-hospital and 90-day survival was 100%. Within the minimally invasive cohort, median right ventricular dysfunction at discharge was none-mild and no patient experienced postoperative renal failure, deep sternal wound infection, sepsis, or stroke.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive surgical pulmonary embolectomy appears to be a feasible approach in the treatment of patients with a submassive pulmonary embolism. A larger, prospective analysis comparing this modality with conventional surgical pulmonary embolectomy may be warranted.