RESUMO
Minimally invasive mitral valve (MV) repair is being increasingly performed over the last 2 decades due to the constantly growing patient demand, since it offers a shorter recovery, less restriction and faster return to normal physical activities, reduction in pain, and superior cosmetic results. However, such procedures have to be performed through small incisions which limit visualization and the freedom of movement of the surgeon, in contrast to conventional operations that are performed through a sternotomy. Therefore, special long surgical instruments are required, and visualization is usually enhanced with advanced port-access two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) thoracoscopic cameras. This makes performance of a minimally invasive MV repair more challenging for the surgeon and is thereby associated with a steep learning curve. Nonetheless, the vast majority of patients who require MV repair are usually good candidates for this less invasive technique, though adequate patient selection is of utmost importance for success. Concomitant cardiac procedures such as ablation surgery for atrial fibrillation or right-sided interventions such as tricuspid valve surgery, heart tumor resection, and atrial septal defect closure can easily be performed using this approach. Short- and long-term results after minimally invasive MV repair are excellent and comparable with those achieved through a sternotomy approach. There are few drawbacks associated with minimally invasive MV repair such as the high technical demands of working through a constrained space and development of complications associated with peripheral cannulation and seldom unilateral pulmonary edema. Nonetheless, high-volume centers have been able to achieve similar operating times, postoperative complication rates, and mid-/long-term outcomes to those obtained through conventional sternotomy. Up-to-date evidence is needed in order to improve recommendations supporting minimally invasive MV repair. Future innovations should concentrate on decreasing complexity and improving reproducibility of minimally invasive procedures in low-volume centers.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare short- and long-term results for patients undergoing either aortic valve-sparing reimplantation (David) procedure (AVr-D) or biological aortic root replacement (Bentall) procedure (ARr-B-bio) for aortic root pathology. METHODS: We compared outcomes for patients who underwent AVr-D (n = 261) or ARr-B-bio (n = 150) between 2000 and 2015 at our institution. The mean age of patients was 55 ± 13 years and 21.7% (n = 89) were female. ARr-B-bio patients were significantly older than AVr-D patients (58 ± 10 vs 53 ± 15 years, p < 0.001) and had a significantly lower incidence of connective tissue disorders (2.0% vs 16.9%, p < 0.001). Follow-up was complete in 88% of patients. RESULTS: Mortality at 30 days was 1.2% (n = 5) overall, at 0.4% (n = 1) significantly lower in the AVr-D group compared with 2.7% (n = 4) in the ARr-B-bio group (p = 0.04). Postoperative low cardiac output was more common in ARr-B-bio patients (n = 4) versus AVr-D patients (n = 0; p = 0.008). The occurrence of postoperative strokes was 2.2% (n = 9) in both groups, without significant differences (p = 0.84). Five- and ten-year survival was 93.7 ± 1.8% and 84.4 ± 4.7% in patients who received AVr-D and 90.9 ± 2.6% and 84.6 ± 5.4% for ARr-B-bio patients (log-rank p = 0.37). Using Cox regression analysis, age (HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.02-1.10, p = 0.002), smoking (HR 2.74; 95% CI 1.28-5.86, p = 0.01), and emergency surgery (HR 6.58; 95% CI 1.69-25.54, p = 0.007) were found to be independent predictors of long-term mortality.There was no difference in freedom from reoperation between AVr-D (89.4 ± 3.4% at 10 years) and ARr-B-bio (80.4 ± 7.5% at 10 years, log-rank p = 0.66) patients, nor for freedom from stroke, bleeding, myocardial infarction, or endocarditis during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes for both AVr-D and ARr-B-bio are excellent in patients with aortic root pathology. The long-term outcomes were associated with comparable survival and freedom from reoperation. AVr-D may be preferable to ARr-B-bio in patients with suitable pathoanatomy.