Contemporary trends and outcomes of mitral valve surgery for infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary data on mitral valve (MV) surgery in patients with infective endocarditis (IE) are limited. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried to identify patients with IE who underwent MV surgery between 2003 and 2016. We assessed (a) temporal trends in the incidence of MV surgery for IE, (b) morbidity, mortality, and cost of MV repair vs replacement, and (c) predictors of in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The proportion of MV operations involving patients with IE increased from 5.4% in 2003 to 7.3%, and the proportion of MV repair among those undergoing surgery for IE increased from 15.2% to 25.0% (Ptrend < .001). In-hospital mortality was higher in the replacement group (11.3% vs 8.1%; P < .001), and this excess mortality persisted after propensity score matching (11.2% vs 8.1%; P < .001), and in sensitivity analyses excluding concomitant surgery (unadjusted 11.3% vs 4.8%; adjusted 8.5% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stratifying patients by the time of operation (within 7 days, 11.3% vs 6.8%; P < .001 and >7 days, 11.9% vs 9.1%; P = .012). In the propensity-matched cohorts, shock and need for tracheostomy were more frequent in the replacement group, but rates of stroke, pacemaker implantation, new dialysis, and blood transfusion were similar. Mitral valve repair was, however, associated with shorter hospitalizations, more home discharges, and less cost. In a multivariate regression analysis, age above 70 and chronic dialysis were the strongest predictors of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Mitral valve repair in IE patients is associated with lower in-hospital mortality, resource utilization, and cost compared with MV replacement.

Robotic mitral valve operations by experienced surgeons are cost-neutral and durable at 1 year.

BACKGROUND: Robotic mitral valve surgery has potential advantages in patient satisfaction and 30-day outcome. Cost concerns and repair durability limit wider adoption of robotic technology. This study examined detailed cost differences between robotic and sternotomy techniques in relation to outcomes and durability following robotic mitral program initiation. METHODS: Between April 2013 and October 2015, 30-day and 1-year outcomes of 328 consecutive patients undergoing robotic or sternotomy mitral valve repair or replacement by experienced surgeons were examined. Multivariable logistic regression informed propensity matching to derive a cohort of 182 patients. Echocardiographic follow-up was completed at 1 year in all robotic patients. Detailed activity-based cost accounting was applied to include direct, semidirect, and indirect costs with special respect to robotic depreciation, maintenance, and supplies. A quantitative analysis of all hospital costs was applied directly to each patient encounter for comparative financial analyses. RESULTS: Mean predicted risk of mortality was similar in both the robotic (n = 91) and sternotomy (n = 91) groups (0.9% vs 0.8%; P > .431). The total costs of robotic mitral operations were similar to those of sternotomy ($27,662 vs $28,241; P = .273). Early direct costs were higher in the robotic group. There was a marked increase in late indirect cost with the sternotomy cohort related to increased length of stay, transfusion requirements, and readmission rates. Robotic repair technique was associated with no echocardiographic recurrence greater than trace to only mild regurgitation at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced mitral surgeons can initiate a robotic program in a cost-neutral manner that maintains clinical outcome integrity as well as repair durability.