Dataset Information

Minimally Invasive Versus Sternotomy for Mitral Surgery in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The safety of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) in elderly patients is still debated. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing MIMVS with conventional sternotomy (CS) in elderly patients (≥65 years old).

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for trials and observational studies comparing MIMVS with CS in patients ≥65 years old presenting for mitral valve surgery. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of all outcomes.

Results

The MIMVS group had lower odds of acute renal failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.27; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.78), prolonged intubation (>48 h; OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70), less blood product transfusion (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.82 units; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.34 units), shorter ICU length of stay (LOS; WMD -2.57 days; 95% CI -3.24 to -1.90 days) and hospital LOS (WMD -4.06 days; 95% CI -5.19 to -2.94 days). There were no significant differences in the odds of mortality, stroke, respiratory infection, reoperation for bleeding, and postoperative atrial fibrillation. MIMVS was associated with longer cross-clamp (WMD 11.8 min; 95% CI 3.5 to 20.1 min) and cardiopulmonary bypass times (WMD 23.0 min; 95% CI 10.4 to 35.6 min).

Conclusions

MIMVS in elderly patients is associated with lower postoperative complications, blood transfusion, shorter ICU, and hospital LOS, and longer cross-clamp and bypass times.

SUBMITTER: Hage A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8414825 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionNumbers of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) surgery for severe mitral regurgitation have grown and will continue to rise. MVr is routinely performed via median sternotomy; however, there is a move towards less invasive surgical approaches.There is debate within the clinical and National Health Service (NHS) commissioning community about widespread adoption of minimally invasive MVr surgery in the absence of robust research evidence; implementation requires investment in staff and infrastructure.The UK Mini Mitral trial will provide definitive evidence comparing patient, NHS and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing MVr surgery. It will establish the best surgical approach for MVr, setting a standard against which emerging percutaneous techniques can be measured. Findings will inform optimisation of cost-effective practice.Methods and analysisUK Mini Mitral is a multicentre, expertise based randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive thoracoscopically guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for MVr. The trial is taking place in NHS cardiothoracic centres in the UK with established minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programmes. In each centre, consenting and eligible patients are randomised to receive surgery performed by consultant surgeons who meet protocol-defined surgical expertise criteria. Patients are followed for 1 year, and consent to longer term follow-up.Primary outcome is physical functioning 12 weeks following surgery, measured by change in Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical functioning scale. Early and 1 year echo data will be reported by a core laboratory. Estimates of key clinical and health economic outcomes will be reported up to 5 years.The primary economic outcome is cost effectiveness, measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained over 52 weeks following index surgery.Ethics and disseminationA favourable opinion was given by Wales REC 6 (16/WA/0156). Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer reviewed publication.Trial registration numberISRCTN13930454.

Project description:Minimally invasive esophagectomy is increasingly performed for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but it is unclear whether hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) or totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE) should be preferred. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing HMIE with TMIE. A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles comparing HMIE and TMIE were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for critical appraisal of methodological quality. The primary outcome was pneumonia. Sensitivity analysis was performed by analyzing outcome for open chest hybrid MIE versus total TMIE and open abdomen MIE versus TMIE separately. Therefore, subgroup analysis was performed for laparoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, thoracoscopy-assisted HMIE versus TMIE, Ivor Lewis HMIE versus Ivor Lewis TMIE, and McKeown HMIE versus McKeown TMIE. There were no randomized controlled trials. Twenty-nine studies with a total of 3732 patients were included. Studies had a low to moderate risk of bias. In the main analysis, the pooled incidence of pneumonia was 19.0% after HMIE and 9.8% after TMIE which was not significantly different between the groups (RR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.97-2.20). TMIE was associated with a lower incidence of wound infections (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.13-2.90) and less blood loss (SMD: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.34-1.22) but with longer operative time (SMD:-0.33, 95% CI: -0.59--0.08). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy-assisted HMIE was associated with a higher lymph node count than TMIE, and Ivor Lewis HMIE was associated with a lower anastomotic leakage rate than Ivor Lewis TMIE. In general, TMIE was associated with moderately lower morbidity compared to HMIE, but randomized controlled evidence is lacking. The higher leakage rate and lower lymph node count that was found after TMIE in sensitivity analysis indicate that TMIE can also have disadvantages. The findings of this meta-analysis should be considered carefully by surgeons when moving from HMIE to TMIE.

Project description:BackgroundThere is still ongoing debate about the benefits of mini-thoracotomy (MTH) approach in mitral valve surgery in comparison with complete sternotomy (STER). This study aims to update the current evidence with mortality as primary end point.MethodsThe MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched through June 2022. Two randomized studies and 16 propensity score matched studies published from 2011 to 2022 were included with a total of 12,997 patients operated on from 2005 (MTH: 6467, STER: 6530). Data regarding early mortality, stroke, reoperation for bleeding, new renal failure, new onset of atrial fibrillation, need of blood transfusion, prolonged ventilation, wound infection, time-related outcomes (cross clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, ventilation time, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay), midterm mortality and reoperation, and costs were extracted and submitted to a meta-analysis using weighted random effects modeling.ResultsThe incidence of early mortality, stroke, reoperation for bleeding and prolonged ventilation were similar, all in the absence of heterogeneity. However, the sub-group analysis showed a significant OR in favor of MTH when robotic enhancement was used. New renal failure (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.06-2.62, p = 0.03), new onset of atrial fibrillation (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15-1.51, p = 0.001) and the need of blood transfusion (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.39-2.27, p = 0.001) were significantly lower in MTH group. Regarding time-related outcomes, there was evidence for important heterogeneity of treatment effect among the studies. Operative times were longer in MTH: differences in means were 20.7 min for cross clamp time (95% CI 14.9-26.4, p = 0.001), 36.8 min for CPB time (95% CI 29.8-43.9, p = 0.001) and 37.7 min for total operative time (95% CI 19.6-55.8, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in ventilation duration; however, the differences in means showed significantly shorter ICU stay and hospital stay after MTH compared to STER: - 0.6 days (95% CI - 1.1/- 0.21, p = 0.001) and - 1.88 days (95% CI - 2.72/- 1.05, p = 0.001) respectively, leading to a significant lower hospital cost after MTH compared to STER with difference in means - 4528 US$ (95% CI - 8725/- 326, p = 0.03). The mid-term mortality was significantly higher after STER compared to MTH: OR = 1.50, 1.09-2.308 (95% CI), p = 0.01; the rate of mid-term reoperation was reported similar in MTH and STER: OR = 0.76, 0.50-1.15 (95% CI), p = 0.19.ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis confirms that the MTH approach for mitral valve disease remains associated with prolonged operative times, but it is beneficial in terms of reduced postoperative complications (renal failure, atrial fibrillation, blood transfusion, wound infection), length of stay in ICU and in hospitalization, with finally a reduction in global cost. MTH approach appears associated with a significant reduction of postoperative mortality that must be confirmed by large randomized study.

Project description:PurposeConventional thyroidectomy has been standard of care for surgical thyroid nodules. For cosmetic purposes different minimally invasive and remote-access surgical approaches have been developed. At present, the most used robotic and endoscopic thyroidectomy approaches are minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT), bilateral axillo-breast approach endoscopic thyroidectomy (BABA-ET), bilateral axillo-breast approach robotic thyroidectomy (BABA-RT), transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy via vestibular approach (TOETVA), retro-auricular endoscopic thyroidectomy (RA-ET), retro-auricular robotic thyroidectomy (RA-RT), gasless transaxillary endoscopic thyroidectomy (GTET) and robot assisted transaxillary surgery (RATS). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate whether minimally invasive techniques are not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase and Web of Science to identify original articles investigating operating time, length of hospital stay and complication rates regarding recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia, of the different minimally invasive techniques.ResultsOut of 569 identified manuscripts, 98 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective in nature. The results of the systematic review varied. Thirty-one articles were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the standard of care, the meta-analysis showed no significant difference in length of hospital stay, except a longer stay after BABA-ET. No significant difference in incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypocalcemia was seen. As expected, operating time was significantly longer for most minimally invasive techniques.ConclusionsThis is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the eight most commonly used minimally invasive thyroid surgeries individually with standard of care. It can be concluded that minimally invasive techniques do not lead to more complications or longer hospital stay and are, therefore, not inferior to conventional thyroidectomy.