Early and Late Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Repair Surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The practice of thoracoscopic assisted minimally invasive mitral valve repair surgery is less common in the United Kingdom than in Europe or the USA. The main reasons for this are concerns around increased operative risk, feasibility and durability of valve repair. The study aim was to report the early and late outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve repair surgery at a single U.K. center. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated minimally invasive mitral valve repair between 2003 and 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. Data were obtained from a prospectively maintained institutional database, a comprehensive review of individual case notes, echocardiograms, intensive care charts, clinic letters, discharge summaries, and the authors' follow up database (based on data supplied by the UK Office for National Statistics). RESULTS: A total of 190 patients (mean age 61 years; mean EuroSCORE 3.9) underwent the procedure. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 153 and 108 min, respectively. Rates of major postoperative complications were: reoperation for bleeding 3.7%, stroke 1.6%, intra-aortic balloon pump 2.1%, and venovenous hemofiltration 2.6%. The median intensive care stay was one day, and the median hospital stay five days (21.8% of patients were discharged by day 3). The 30-day mortality was 1.1% (n = 2). Echocardiography performed at discharge or six weeks postoperatively showed less than mild mitral regurgitation (MR) in 91.3%. The median duration of follow up was 57 months. During the entire follow up period, four patients (2.1%) underwent repeat surgery for recurrent MR (between 15 months and five years). Of 188 patients discharged from hospital, nine (4.8%) died during follow up: median 5.3 years (range 1.3- 10.7 years) post surgery. CONCLUSION: These data are the first from the U.K. demonstrating early and late outcomes after thoracoscopic assisted minimally invasive mitral valve repair surgery. The data establish the safety and efficacy of the technique and, importantly, lend further support towards a prospective randomized comparison of minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve repair surgery.

Manubrium-limited sternotomy decreases blood loss after aortic valve replacement surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive surgical approaches for aortic valve replacement (AVR) are growing in popularity in an attempt to decrease morbidity from conventional surgery. We have adopted a technique that divides only the manubrium and spares the body of the sternum. We sought to determine whether patients benefit from this less-invasive approach. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed our prospectively maintained database to review all isolated aortic valve replacements performed in an 18-month period from November 2011 to April 2013. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-one patients were identified, 98 underwent manubrium-limited sternotomy (Mini-AVR) and 93 had a conventional median sternotomy (AVR). The two groups were well matched for preoperative variables and risk (mean logistic EuroSCORE mini-AVR 7.15 vs AVR 6.55, P = 0.47). Mean cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times were 10 and 6 min longer, respectively, in the mini-AVR group (mean values 88 vs 78 min, P = 0.00040, and 66 vs 60 min, P = 0.0078, respectively). Mini-AVR patients had significantly less postoperative blood loss, 332 vs 513 ml, P = 0.00021, and were less likely to require blood products (fresh-frozen plasma and platelets), 24 vs 36%, P = 0.042. Postoperative complications and length of stay were similar (discharge on or before Day 4; mini-AVR 15 vs AVR 8%, P = 0.17). Valve outcome (paravalvular leak mini-AVR 2 vs AVR 1%, P = 1.00) and survival (mini-AVR 99 vs AVR 97%, P = 0.36) were equal. CONCLUSIONS: A manubrium-limited approach maintains outcomes achieved for aortic valve replacement by conventional sternotomy while significantly reducing postoperative blood loss and transfusion of blood products.