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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |