Patient-reported outcome measures after mitral valve repair: a comparison between minimally invasive and sternotomy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patient-reported outcome measures of minimally invasive (MI) to sternotomy (ST) mitral valve repair. METHODS: We included all patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery via either a right mini-thoracotomy (MI) or ST over a 36-month period. Patients were asked to complete a modified Composite Physical Function questionnaire. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures were compared between 2 propensity-matched groups (n = 47/group), assessing 3 domains: 'Recovery Time', 'Postoperative Pain' (at day 2 and 1, 3, 6 and 12 weeks) and 'Treatment Satisfaction'. Composite scores for each domain were subsequently constructed and multivariable analysis was used to determine whether surgical approach was associated with domain scores. RESULTS: The response rate was 79%. There was no mortality in either group. In the matched groups, operative times were longer in the MI group (P < 0.001), but postoperative outcomes were similar. Composite scores for Recovery Time [ST 51.7 (31.8-62.1) vs MI 61.7 (43.1-73.9), P = 0.03] and Pain [ST 65.7 (40.1-83.1) vs MI 79.1 (65.5-89.5), P = 0.02] significantly favoured the MI group. Scores in the Treatment Satisfaction domain were high for both surgical approaches [ST 100 (82.5-100) vs MI 100 (95.0-100), P = 0.15]. The strongest independent predictor of both faster recovery parameter estimate 12.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7-18.3, P < 0.001] and less pain parameter estimate 7.6 (95% CI 0.7-14.5, P = 0.03) was MI surgery. CONCLUSIONS: MI surgery was associated with faster recovery and less pain; treatment satisfaction and safety profiles were similar.

Cost Analysis of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery in the UK National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: In the UK National Health Service, finite resources make the adoption of minimally invasive (MI) mitral valve surgery challenging unless greater operative costs (vs sternotomy [ST]) are balanced by postoperative savings. This study examined whether the cost analysis now became unfavorable. METHODS: All patients (n = 380) undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery with or without a maze procedure over a 3-year period by either MI or ST approaches were included. Propensity matching (2 cohorts, 1:1 matched;, n = 75 per group) and multivariable regression were used to assess for the effect on cost. Cost data were prospectively collected from Service Line Reporting and reported in Sterling (£) as median (interquartile range [IQR]). RESULTS: Matched data revealed that total hospital costs were equivalent (MI vs ST, £16,672 [IQR, £15,044, £20,611] vs £15,875 [IQR, £12,281, £20,687]; P .33). Three of 15 costing pools were significantly different: operative costs were higher for the MI group (MI vs ST, £7458 [IQR, £6738, £8286] vs £5596 iIQR, £4204, £6992]; P < .001), whereas ward costs (boarding, nursing) (MI vs ST, £1464 [IQR, £1146, £1864] vs £1733 [IQR, £1403, £2445] P = .006) and pharmacy services (MI vs ST, £187 [IQR, £140, £239] vs £244 [IQR, £179, £375] P < .001) were lower for the MI group. Hospital stay was shorter in the MI group (MI vs ST, 6 days [IQR, 5, 8 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6, 11 days]; P < .001). Multivariable regression produced similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in overall hospital cost between MI and ST mitral valve surgery: higher operative costs of MI surgery were offset by lower postoperative costs, with a 2-day shorter hospital stay.