Effectiveness of telemedicine in a mitral valve center of excellence.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a drastic increase in the use of telemedicine. There is little information about the effectiveness of telemedicine in cardiac surgery. We examined clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction among patients who had in-person versus telemedicine preoperative appointments in a subspecialized mitral valve surgical practice. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who had elective mitral valve operations between January 2019 and February 2021. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on the format of the preoperative appointment (telemedicine or in-person). Preoperative characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. All patients who had a telemedicine appointment were sent an online survey to assess their satisfaction with the process. RESULTS: Among 286 patients analyzed, 197 (69%) had in-person preoperative evaluations and 89 (31%) had telemedicine evaluations. The in-person and telemedicine groups had similar preoperative and operative characteristics. Outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups, including ventilation time (3.7 vs. 4.1 h, p = .399), total length of stay (5 vs. 5 days, p = .949), 30-day mortality (0% vs. 1%, p = .311), and readmissions within 30 days (13% vs. 8%, p = .197). Among patients who completed the survey, 91% were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the telemedicine preoperative appointment. CONCLUSION: Patients who had telemedicine preoperative appointments before mitral valve operations during the COVID-19 pandemic had similarly excellent clinical outcomes to patients who had in-person preoperative appointments before the pandemic. Patients had relatively high levels of satisfaction with telemedicine and almost half preferred telemedicine for future visits.

Degenerative Mitral Valve Repair Simplified: An Evolution to Universal Artificial Cordal Repair.

BACKGROUND: Resectional and artificial cordal repair techniques are effective strategies for degenerative mitral valve (MV) repair. However, resectional repair requires a tailored approach using various techniques, whereas cordal repair offers a simpler, easily reproducible repair. The approach described in this study approach has evolved from resectional to cordal over time, and outcomes are compared between the eras. METHODS: Clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of all patients undergoing MV repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) from January 2004 to September 2017 were reviewed. Patients were stratified by era: from January 2004 to June 2011 (era 1; n = 405), resectional techniques were used in 62% and artificial cordal techniques were used in 38%. From July 2011 to September 2017 (era 2; n = 438), artificial cordal repair was used in 98% of patients. The primary outcome was repair failure, defined as greater than moderate MR or MV reoperation. RESULTS: Of 847 patients with degenerative MR, successful repair was achieved in 843 patients (99.5% repair rate). Leaflet prolapse was posterior in 66%, anterior in 8%, and bileaflet in 26%. Cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp times were shorter in era 2 (CPB: 109 [IQR, 92-128] minutes vs 97 [IQR, 76-121] minutes; P < .001; cross-clamp: 88 [IQR, 73-106] minutes vs. 79 [IQR, 61-99] minutes; P < .001). Predismissal echocardiography demonstrated no MR or trace MR in 95%, mild MR in 4.7%, and moderate MR in 0.3% of patients. Operative mortality was similar in the eras (0.5% vs 0.5%; P > .999). The rates of 5-year freedom from repair failure (95.1% vs 95.5%; P = .707), stroke (96.8% vs 95.3%; P = .538), and endocarditis (99.3% vs 99.7%; P = .604) were similar between the eras. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial cordal repair for all patients with degenerative MR simplifies MV repair and yields equivalent, excellent outcomes compared with a tailored resectional approach.