Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

Minimally invasive mitral valve repair has been increasingly adopted. Right minithoracotomy (RT) and lower hemisternotomy (HS) have each been associated with improved short-term outcomes; however, these approaches have not been directly compared to each other. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival and durability of 2 minimally invasive approaches to mitral repair.

Methods

We retrospectively identified all isolated mitral repairs performed via RT or HS between October 1997 and June 2018; 100 RT cases and 719 HS cases were included. Outcomes of interest were postoperative complications, long-term survival, and freedom from mitral reoperation. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare RT and HS to a reference cohort of full-sternotomy cases. Total observation time was 9,901 patient-years and mean follow-up time was 12.2 years.

Results

Mean age was 58±12 years in the RT group and 56±13 years in the HS group (P = 0.2). The RT group had longer bypass (143 minutes vs. 112 minutes; P < 0.001) and cross-clamp times (99 minutes vs. 78 minutes; P < 0.001) compared with the HS group. There were no differences in operative mortality or 30-day outcomes. Survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 99% (96-100), 92% (85-100), and 69% (30-100) in the RT group and 98% (97-99), 92% (90-94), and 89% (86-92) for HS (P < 0.9). There were no differences in risk-adjusted survival between RT, HS and full sternotomy. No long-term mitral reoperations occurred in the RT group and 8 (1%) occurred in the HS group (P < 0.50).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive mitral valve repair can be performed safely through RT or HS with excellent survival and durability at 15 years.

Keywords

minimally invasive mitral surgery hemisternotomy minithoracotomy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gammie

JS.

Zhao

Peterson

et al. Less-invasive mitral valve operations: trends and outcomes from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90: 1401–1410.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.05.055

Javadikasgari

Suri

RM.

Tappuni

et al. Minimally invasive mitral valve repair. Heart 2018; 104: 861–867.doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2016-310774

Mazine

Vistarini

Ghoneim

et al. Very high repair rate using minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of degenerative mitral insufficiency. Can J Cardiol 2015; 31: 744–751.doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2014.12.029

Schmitto

JD.

Mokashi

SA.

Cohn

. Minimally-invasive valve surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56: 455–462.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.03.053

Svensson

LG.

Atik

FA.

Cosgrove

et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve surgery: a propensity-matched comparison. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 139: 926–932.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.09.038

Santana

Reyna

Grana

et al. Outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery versus standard sternotomy in obese patients undergoing isolated valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91: 406–410.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.09.039

Santana

Xydas

Williams

et al. Minimally invasive valve surgery in high-risk patients. J Thorac Dis 2017; 9(S7): S614–S623.doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.03.83

Atluri

Stetson

RL.

Hung

et al. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay when compared with traditional sternotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 151: 385–388.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.106

Cohn

LH.

Adams

DH.

Couper

et al. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg 1997; 226: 421–428.doi:10.1097/00000658-199710000-00003

10.

McClure

RS.

Athanasopoulos

LV.

McGurk

et al. One thousand minimally invasive mitral valve operations: early outcomes, late outcomes, and echocardiographic follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145: 1199–1206.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.12.070

11.

Glauber

Miceli

Canarutto

et al. Early and long-term outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through right minithoracotomy: a 10-year experience in 1604 patients. J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 10: 181.doi:10.1186/s13019-015-0390-y

12.

Cohn

. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: technical considerations and results with the parasternal approach. J Card Surg 1998; 13: 302–305.doi:10.1111/j.1540-8191.1998.tb01073.x

13.

Greelish

JP.

Cohn

LH.

Leacche

et al. Minimally invasive mitral valve repair suggests earlier operations for mitral valve disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 126: 365–371.doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(03)00078-3

14.

Seeburger

Borger

MA.

Falk

et al. Minimal invasive mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation: results of 1339 consecutive patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008; 34: 760–765.doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.05.015

15.

Svensson

LG.

Atik

FA.

Cosgrove

et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve surgery: a propensity-matched comparison. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 139: 926–932.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.09.038

16.

Iribarne

Russo

MJ.

Easterwood

et al. Minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach for mitral valve surgery: a propensity analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90: 1471–1478.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.06.034

17.

Cao

Gupta

Chandrakumar

et al. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve repair for patients with degenerative mitral disease. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 2: 693–703.

18.

Holzhey

DM.

Shi

Borger

et al. Minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach for mitral valve surgery in patients greater than 70 years old: a propensity-matched comparison. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91: 401–405.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.08.006

19.

Murphy

SN.

Chueh

. A security architecture for query tools used to access large biomedical databases. Proc AMIA Symp 2002: 552–556.

20.

Wolfe

JA.

Malaisrie

SC.

Farivar

et al. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery II: surgical technique and postoperative management. Innovations 2016; 11: 251–259.doi:10.1097/imi.0000000000000300

21.

Yammine

Neely

RC.

Loberman

et al. The use of lidocaine containing cardioplegia in surgery for adult acquired heart disease. J Card Surg 2015; 30: 677–684.doi:10.1111/jocs.12597

22.

Holzhey

DM.

Seeburger

Misfeld

et al. Learning minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a cumulative sum sequential probability analysis of 3895 operations from a single high-volume center. Circulation 2013; 128: 483–491.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.001402

23.

Colli

Adams

Fiocco

et al. Transapical NeoChord mitral valve repair. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 7: 812–820.doi:10.21037/acs.2018.11.04

24.

Gammie

JS.

Wilson

Bartus

et al. Transapical beating-heart mitral valve repair with an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene cordal implantation device. Circulation 2016; 134: 189–197.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022010

25.

Yazdchi

Kaneko

Tang

GHL

. Surgical versus percutaneous approaches for degenerative mitral valve repair: a review. Structural Heart 2019; 3: 176–184.doi:10.1080/24748706.2019.1596337

26.

Bedeir

Reardon

Ramchandani

et al. Elevated stroke risk associated with femoral artery cannulation during mitral valve surgery. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 27: 97–103.doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2015.06.008

27.

Grossi

EA.

Loulmet

DF.

Schwartz

et al. Minimally invasive valve surgery with antegrade perfusion strategy is not associated with increased neurologic complications. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 92: 1346–1350.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.04.055

28.

Murzi

Cerillo

AG.

Gasbarri

et al. Antegrade and retrograde perfusion in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery with transthoracic aortic clamping: a single-institution experience with 1632 patients over 12 years. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2016; 24: 370: 370.doi:10.1093/icvts/ivw370

29.

Percy

ED.

Hirji

SA.

Kaneko

et al. Patient-reported outcomes: how to advance the minimally invasive debate. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 157: e355–e356.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.01.052

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.06 MB

0.00 MB

Long-Term Outcomes of Right Minithoracotomy Versus Hemisternotomy for Mitral Valve Repair

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material