Background: To compare surgical outcomes after mitral valve replacement via either minimally invasive thoracoscopic (MIs) or traditional median sternotomy (MS) surgery and determine the short-and mid-term clinical outcomes of the MI approach.Methods: All patients who received either MIs (n=405) or MS (n=691) mitral valve replacement surgery at the Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute between January 2012 and July 2015 were analyzed for outcome differences due to surgical approach using propensity score matching. The best 202 matches from the MI group and the MS group were analyzed. The clinical data of the two groups were collected, including preoperative cardiac function, operative data, postoperative complications, and follow-up.Results: A final total of 404 patients were included in this study after propensity score matching; the MIs group and the MS group each contained 202 patients. The two groups were similar in age, weight, pathological changes, and surgical approach. Compared with the MS group, the MIs group had a longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (P<0.001), aortic cross-clamping time (P<0.001), and total procedure time (P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding in-hospital mortality, stroke, pneumonia, acute renal failure, arrhythmia, and chylothorax. The MS group had significantly more patients with poor wound healing than the MIs group (P=0.004). The MI group had a lower rate of transfusion (P=0.037), shorter ventilation time (P=0.041), shorter ICU stay (P=0.033), reduced chest tube drainage and length of chest tube stay (P<0.001), and shorter hospital stay (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in hospital re-admission for bleeding, but the total hospitalization cost was higher in the MIs group (P=0.002). The mean follow-up was 26.59±12.33 months, the 1-year postoperative survival rate was 98.86%, and the overall survival rate was 97.44%. Compared with the MS group, the MIs group recovered earlier (P<0.05), and returned to work or study earlier (P<0.05). More patients in the MIs group were satisfied with the wound (P<0.001). The MS group had a higher incidence of postoperative osteomyelitis than the MIs group (P=0.028). There were no significant differences between groups in rates of mortality, stroke, pacemaker, reoperation, or 36-item Short Form Health Survey score.Conclusions: Compared with the MS approach, the MIs method of mitral valve replacement has longer cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time; however, it does not increase the risk of mortality Liu et al. MVR via MICS versus traditional approach
Background:The aims of the present study was to compare midterm results of quadrangular leaflet resection versus chordal replacement for the repair of degenerative posterior mitral leaflet (PML) prolapse, and to explore the risk factors for recurrent severe mitral regurgitation (MR). Methods: From January 2012 to December 2018, 1,423 consecutive patients underwent mitral valve (MV) repair. A total of 317 had degenerative PML prolapse and constituted the study population. Of these, 74 (23.3%) underwent quadrangular leaflet resection, and 243 (76.7%) underwent chordal replacement.Outcomes were compared by using unadjusted data and propensity score-matched analyses.Results: Patients with multiple leaflet prolapse were more likely to undergo chordal replacement (18.4% vs. 41.9%, P<0.001), and performed as a minimally invasive approach (47.3% vs. 61.7%, P=0.027). Of the entire cohort, 1 death (0.3%) occurred due to intraoperative aortic dissection, and 1 patient who had undergone chordal replacement required reoperation before discharge for posterior leaflet tearing. There was no significant difference in the probability of freedom from recurrent severe MR at 82 months between the resection and neochordae groups in both the pre-matched (95.6% vs. 88.8%, P=0.105) and matched (95.2% vs. 88.5%, P=0.170) cohorts, which was consistent across all of the examined subgroups (P>0.05).Multivariate Cox regression indicated that dilated left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) was an independent risk factor for recurrent severe MR [<40 vs.
Objectives: This review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of concomitant surgical ablation (SA) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing rheumatic mitral valve (MV) surgery.Methods: A systematic search of relevant studies focusing on SA for patients with AF undergoing rheumatic MV surgery was performed. The primary outcomes included mortality, efficacy, and complications.Results: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four observational studies covering 1931 patients met the inclusion criteria. In RCTs, no significant differences in reoperation for bleeding, low cardiac output syndrome, thromboembolic events, and early (risk ratio [RR], 2.07; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.37-11.40; p = .41) and midterm all-cause death (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.40-2.88; p = .89) were noted between the SA group and the nonablation group. These results were similar to those obtained from observational studies. However, ablation was associated with a higher incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (RR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.15-5.18; p = .02) in observational studies but not in RCTs (RR, 2.03; 95% CI, 0.19-21.26; p = .56). Furthermore, additional SA was significantly more effective in sinus rhythm (SR) restoration than MV surgery alone at discharge and at the 12-month and 3-year follow-ups.Conclusions: Concomitant SA during rheumatic MV surgery does not increase perioperative adverse events. In addition, SA promotes considerable restoration of SR. Although some evidence exists that permanent pacemaker implantation is more common after ablation, not all studies support this notion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.