Cargando…

Robotic mitral valve replacements with bioprosthetic valves in 52 patients: experience from a tertiary referral hospital

OBJECTIVES: Robotic mitral valve replacement (MVR) emerged in the late 1990s as an alternative approach to conventional sternotomy. With the increased use of bioprosthetic valves worldwide and strong patient desire for minimally invasive procedures, the safety and feasibility of robotic MVRs with bi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kuo, Chia-Cheng, Chang, Hsiao-Huang, Hsing, Chung-Hsi, Hii, Hiong-Ping, Wu, Nan-Chun, Hsu, Chin-Ming, Chen, Chun-I, Cheng, Bor-Chih
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6191928/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29617931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezy134
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Robotic mitral valve replacement (MVR) emerged in the late 1990s as an alternative approach to conventional sternotomy. With the increased use of bioprosthetic valves worldwide and strong patient desire for minimally invasive procedures, the safety and feasibility of robotic MVRs with bioprosthetic valves require investigation. METHODS: Between January 2013 and May 2017, 52 consecutive patients underwent robotic MVRs using the da Vinci Si surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Their mean age was 55.1 ± 13.8 years, and mean EuroSCORE II was 2.25% ± 1.25%. Among the enrolled patients, 32 (61.5%) patients presented with preoperative atrial fibrillation, 6 (11.5%) patients had experienced embolic stroke and 5 (9.6%) patients had undergone previous cardiac surgery. The operations were performed using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) under an arrested heart status. RESULTS: Five porcine valves and 47 bovine valves were implanted. A total of 38 (73.1%) patients received concomitant cardiac procedures, including 26 Cox-maze IV procedures, 12 tricuspid valve repairs and 5 atrial septal defect repairs. The mean aortic cross-clamp and CPB times were 141.3 ± 34.3 min and 217.1 ± 42.0 min, respectively. There was no operative mortality. During the mean follow-up of 29 ± 15 months, no prosthesis degeneration was noted. The average left atrial dimension exhibited a significant decrease from 51.4 ± 11.5 mm to 42.6 ± 10.1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic MVR with bioprosthetic valves is safe, feasible and reproducible. Mid-term results are encouraging. Both aortic cross-clamp and CPB times can be improved with experience.