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.

Is robotic mitral valve surgery more expensive than its conventional counterpart?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Is robotic mitral valve surgery more expensive than its conventional counterpart?' Altogether 19 papers were found using the reported search, of which 5 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. There is a general impression in the surgical community that robotic operations might incur prohibitive additional costs. There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding cost analysis in cardiac robotic surgery. From the five studies, four were single institution experiences and one was a database inquiry study. These four studies showed that operational costs are higher for robotic cases but this was partially (one study) or completely (three studies) offset by lower postoperative costs. Overall hospital costs were similar between the two approaches in three studies and one study showed higher costs in the robotic group. Higher operating theatre (OT) costs were driven mainly by use of robotic instruments (approximately US$1500 per case) and longer OT times. Savings in postoperative care were driven by shorter length of hospital stay (on average 2 days fewer in robotic cases) and lower morbidity. If amortization cost, that is, the value of the initial capital investment on the robotic system divided by all operations performed, is included in this analysis, robotic approach becomes significantly more expensive by approximately US$3400 per case. The fifth study was a large national database inquiry in which robotic approach was found to be more expensive by US$600 per case excluding amortization cost and by US$3700 if amortization is included. We conclude that the total hospital cost of robotic mitral valve surgery is slightly higher than conventional sternotomy surgery. If amortization is taken into consideration, robotic cases are considerably more expensive.

The challenges of managing rheumatic disease of the mitral valve in Jamaica.

Between January, 2009 and December, 2013, 84 patients were identified who underwent isolated mitral valve surgery in Jamaica at The University Hospital of the West Indies and The Bustamante Hospital for Children. The most common pathology requiring surgery was rheumatic heart disease, accounting for 84% of the procedures performed. The majority of patients had regurgitation of the mitral valve (67%), stenosis of the mitral valve (22%), and mixed mitral valve disease (11%). The most common procedure performed was replacement of the mitral valve (69%), followed by mitral valve repair (29%). Among the patients, one underwent closed mitral commissurotomy. The choice of procedure differed between age groups. In the paediatric population (<18 years of age), the majority of patients underwent repair of the mitral valve (89%). In the adult population (18 years and above), the majority of patients underwent mitral valve replacement (93%). Overall, of all the patients undergoing replacement of the mitral valve, 89% received a mechanical valve prosthesis, whereas 11% received a bioprosthetic valve prosthesis. Of the group of patients who underwent mitral valve repair for rheumatic heart disease, 19% required re-operation. The average time between initial surgery and re-operation was 1.2 years. Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease remain significant public health challenges in Jamaica and other developing countries. Focus must remain on primary and secondary prevention strategies in order to limit the burden of rheumatic valvulopathies. Attention should also be directed towards improving access to surgical treatment for young adults.