Cargando…

Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve (MV) surgery has traditionally been performed by conventional sternotomy (CS), but more recently minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become another treatment option. The aim of this study is to compare short- and long-term results of MV surgery after CS and MIS. METHODS: Th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cetinkaya, Ayse, Geier, Anna, Bramlage, Karin, Hein, Stefan, Bramlage, Peter, Schönburg, Markus, Choi, Yeong-Hoon, Richter, Manfred
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8236182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34174818
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02121-3
_version_ 1783714485575352320
author Cetinkaya, Ayse
Geier, Anna
Bramlage, Karin
Hein, Stefan
Bramlage, Peter
Schönburg, Markus
Choi, Yeong-Hoon
Richter, Manfred
author_facet Cetinkaya, Ayse
Geier, Anna
Bramlage, Karin
Hein, Stefan
Bramlage, Peter
Schönburg, Markus
Choi, Yeong-Hoon
Richter, Manfred
author_sort Cetinkaya, Ayse
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Mitral valve (MV) surgery has traditionally been performed by conventional sternotomy (CS), but more recently minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become another treatment option. The aim of this study is to compare short- and long-term results of MV surgery after CS and MIS. METHODS: This study was a retrospective propensity-matched analysis of MV operations between January 2005 and December 2015. RESULTS: Among 1357 patients, 496 underwent CS and 861 MIS. Matching resulted in 422 patients per group. The procedure time was longer with MIS than CS (192 vs. 185 min; p = 0.002) as was cardiopulmonary bypass time (133 vs. 101 min; p < 0.001) and X-clamp time (80 vs. 71 min; p < 0.001). ‘Short-term’ successful valve repair was higher with MIS (96.0% vs. 76.0%, p < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was shorter in MIS than CS patients (10 vs. 11 days; p = 0.001). There was no difference in the overall 30-day mortality rate. Cardiovascular death was lower after MIS (1.2%) compared with CS (3.8%; OR 0.30; 95%CI 0.11–0.84). The difference did not remain significant after adjustment for procedural differences (aOR 0.40; 95%CI 0.13–1.25). Pacemaker was required less often after MIS (3.3%) than CS (11.2%; aOR 0.31; 95%CI 0.16–0.61), and acute renal failure was less common (2.1% vs. 11.9%; aOR 0.22; 95%CI 0.10–0.48). There were no significant differences with respect to rates of stroke, myocardial infarction or repeat MV surgery. The 7-year survival rate was significantly better after MIS (88.5%) than CS (74.8%; aHR 0.44, 95%CI 0.31–0.64). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that good results for MV surgery can be obtained with MIS, achieving a high MV repair rate, low peri-procedural morbidity and mortality, and improved long-term survival.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8236182
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82361822021-06-28 Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series Cetinkaya, Ayse Geier, Anna Bramlage, Karin Hein, Stefan Bramlage, Peter Schönburg, Markus Choi, Yeong-Hoon Richter, Manfred BMC Cardiovasc Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Mitral valve (MV) surgery has traditionally been performed by conventional sternotomy (CS), but more recently minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become another treatment option. The aim of this study is to compare short- and long-term results of MV surgery after CS and MIS. METHODS: This study was a retrospective propensity-matched analysis of MV operations between January 2005 and December 2015. RESULTS: Among 1357 patients, 496 underwent CS and 861 MIS. Matching resulted in 422 patients per group. The procedure time was longer with MIS than CS (192 vs. 185 min; p = 0.002) as was cardiopulmonary bypass time (133 vs. 101 min; p < 0.001) and X-clamp time (80 vs. 71 min; p < 0.001). ‘Short-term’ successful valve repair was higher with MIS (96.0% vs. 76.0%, p < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was shorter in MIS than CS patients (10 vs. 11 days; p = 0.001). There was no difference in the overall 30-day mortality rate. Cardiovascular death was lower after MIS (1.2%) compared with CS (3.8%; OR 0.30; 95%CI 0.11–0.84). The difference did not remain significant after adjustment for procedural differences (aOR 0.40; 95%CI 0.13–1.25). Pacemaker was required less often after MIS (3.3%) than CS (11.2%; aOR 0.31; 95%CI 0.16–0.61), and acute renal failure was less common (2.1% vs. 11.9%; aOR 0.22; 95%CI 0.10–0.48). There were no significant differences with respect to rates of stroke, myocardial infarction or repeat MV surgery. The 7-year survival rate was significantly better after MIS (88.5%) than CS (74.8%; aHR 0.44, 95%CI 0.31–0.64). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that good results for MV surgery can be obtained with MIS, achieving a high MV repair rate, low peri-procedural morbidity and mortality, and improved long-term survival. BioMed Central 2021-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8236182/ /pubmed/34174818 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02121-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cetinkaya, Ayse
Geier, Anna
Bramlage, Karin
Hein, Stefan
Bramlage, Peter
Schönburg, Markus
Choi, Yeong-Hoon
Richter, Manfred
Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series
title Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series
title_full Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series
title_fullStr Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series
title_full_unstemmed Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series
title_short Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series
title_sort long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8236182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34174818
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02121-3
work_keys_str_mv AT cetinkayaayse longtermresultsaftermitralvalvesurgeryusingminimallyinvasiveversussternotomyapproachapropensitymatchedcomparisonofalargesinglecenterseries
AT geieranna longtermresultsaftermitralvalvesurgeryusingminimallyinvasiveversussternotomyapproachapropensitymatchedcomparisonofalargesinglecenterseries
AT bramlagekarin longtermresultsaftermitralvalvesurgeryusingminimallyinvasiveversussternotomyapproachapropensitymatchedcomparisonofalargesinglecenterseries
AT heinstefan longtermresultsaftermitralvalvesurgeryusingminimallyinvasiveversussternotomyapproachapropensitymatchedcomparisonofalargesinglecenterseries
AT bramlagepeter longtermresultsaftermitralvalvesurgeryusingminimallyinvasiveversussternotomyapproachapropensitymatchedcomparisonofalargesinglecenterseries
AT schonburgmarkus longtermresultsaftermitralvalvesurgeryusingminimallyinvasiveversussternotomyapproachapropensitymatchedcomparisonofalargesinglecenterseries
AT choiyeonghoon longtermresultsaftermitralvalvesurgeryusingminimallyinvasiveversussternotomyapproachapropensitymatchedcomparisonofalargesinglecenterseries
AT richtermanfred longtermresultsaftermitralvalvesurgeryusingminimallyinvasiveversussternotomyapproachapropensitymatchedcomparisonofalargesinglecenterseries