Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Institutional 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. METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:The 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). CONCLUSION:Despite 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.

SUBMITTER: Hawkins RB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6237642 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Hawkins Robert B RB Mehaffey J Hunter JH Mullen Matthew G MG Nifong Wiley L WL Chitwood W Randolph WR Katz Marc R MR Quader Mohammed A MA Kiser Andy C AC Speir Alan M AM Ailawadi Gorav G

Heart (British Cardiac Society) 20180618 23

<h4>Objectives</h4>Institutional 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.<h4>Methods</h4>A 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 c ...[more]

PMID: 29915143

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MVS) via right mini-thoracotomy has recently attracted a lot of attention. Minimally invasive MVS shows postoperative results that are comparable to those of conventional MVS through the median sternotomy as per various earlier studies.MethodsBetween 2000 and 2016, a total of 669 isolated mitral valve procedures for isolated mitral valve regurgitation were performed. A propensity score-matched analysis was generated for the elimination of the differences in relevant preoperative risk factors between the cohorts and included 227 patient pairs. Only degenerative mitral valve regurgitation was included. The aim of our study was to examine if the minimally MVS is superior to the conventional approach through sternotomy based on a retrospective propensity-matched analysis. The primary endpoints were early mortality and long-term survival. The secondary endpoints included postoperative complications.ResultsThe in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher within the conventional sternotomy cohort (3.1%, n = 7 vs 0.4%, n = 1 for the minimally invasive cohort; p = 0.032). The incidence of stroke and exploration for bleeding was comparable. In contrast, the necessity for dialysis was significantly lower in the minimally invasive cohort (p = 0.044). Postoperative pain was not significantly lower in the minimally invasive MVS cohort (p = 0.862). While patients who underwent minimally invasive MVS experienced longer bypass and cross-clamp times, their lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital, did not differ from the conventionally operated collective (p = 0.779 and p = 0.516), respectively. The mitral valve repair rate of 81.1% in the minimally invasive cohort was significantly superior to that of the conventional approach, which was 46.3% (p < 0.0001). The one-, five-, and 10-year survival rates were significantly higher in the minimally invasive cohort compared to the conventional approach (96%, 90%, and 84% vs. 89%, 85%, and 70%; log rank p = 0.004).ConclusionDespite prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamping times, the minimally invasive MVS may be considered a safe approach that is equivalent to standard median sternotomy with lower early mortality and superior long-term survival.

Project description:Background:Cardiac redo surgery, especially after a full sternotomy, is considered a high-risk procedure. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) is a potential therapeutic approach. However, current developments in interventional cardiology necessitate additional discussion regarding the therapy of choice in high-risk patients. In this context, it is necessary to clarify the perioperative and postoperative risks induced by the factor previous sternotomy in the setting of MIMVS. Thus, we present a comparative study analyzing the outcome of MIMVS after previous sternotomy vs. primary operation. Methods:We identified 19 patients who received isolated or combined mitral valve (MV) surgery via the MIMVS approach after previous full sternotomy (PS group) and compared the results to those of a group of 357 patients who received primary MIMVS (non-PS group). After a propensity score analysis, groups of n?=?15 and n?=?131, respectively, were subjected to a comparative evaluation. A 1-year follow-up analysis of functional cardiac parameters and clinical symptoms was performed, accompanied by a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results:Except for the rate of realized MV reconstructions (PS group: 53.8% vs. non-PS group: 85.5%; p?=?0.011), no significant differences were to be noted within the intraoperative and early postoperative course. However, patients in the PS group experienced an increased intensive care unit stay length (PS group: 2?days, 95% CI, 1-8 vs. non-PS group: 1 day, 95% CI, 1-2; p?=?0.072). The follow-up examinations revealed excellent functional and clinical outcomes for both groups. The Kaplan-Meier analysis displayed no significant difference regarding the postoperative mortality (p?=?0.929) related to the patients at risk. Conclusion:A previous sternotomy remains a risk factor for MIMVS and demands special attention in the early postoperative period. Nevertheless, the early- and late-term results concerning the functional and clinical outcomes suggest that the MIMVS procedure is satisfactory, even after a full sternotomy.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally-invasive (MIS) mitral valve (MV) surgery has become standard therapy in many cardiac surgery centers. While femoral arterial perfusion is the preferred cannulation strategy in MIS mitral valve surgery, retrograde arterial perfusion is known to be associated with an increased risk for cerebral atheroembolism, particularly in atherosclerosis patients. Therefore, antegrade perfusion may be beneficial in such cases. This analysis aimed to compare outcomes of antegrade axillary vs. retrograde femoral perfusion in the MIS mitral valve surgery.MethodsThis analysis includes 50 consecutive patients who underwent MIS between 2016 and 2020 using arterial cannulation of right axillary artery (Group A) due to severe aortic arteriosclerosis. Perioperative outcomes of the study group were compared with a historical control group of retrograde femoral perfusion (Group F) which was adjusted for age and gender (n = 50). Primary endpoint of the study was in-hospital mortality and perioperative cerebrovascular events.ResultsPatients in group A had a significantly higher perioperative risk as compared to Group F (EuroSCORE II: 3.9 ± 2.5 vs. 1.6 ± 1.5; p = 0.001; STS-Score: 2.1 ± 1.4 vs. 1.3 ± 0.6; p = 0.023). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (group A: 172 ± 46; group F: 178 ± 51 min; p = 0.627) and duration of surgery (group A: 260 ± 65; group F: 257 ± 69 min; p = 0.870) were similar. However, aortic cross clamp time was significantly shorter in group A as compared to group F (86 ± 20 vs. 111 ± 29 min, p < 0.001). There was no perioperative stroke in either groups. In-hospital mortality was similar in both groups (group A: 1 patient; group F: 0 patients; p = 0.289). In group A, one patient required central aortic repair due to intraoperative aortic dissection. No further cardiovascular events occurred in Group A patients.ConclusionSelective use of antegrade axillary artery perfusion in patients with systemic atherosclerosis shows similar in-hospital outcomes as compared to lower risk patients undergoing retrograde femoral perfusion. Patients with higher perioperative risk and severe atherosclerosis can be safely treated via the minimally invasive approach with antegrade axillary perfusion.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets