Key result
Female sex shows no difference in 5-year survival or re-intervention after minimally invasive mitral surgery.
Why the study?
Female gender is an established risk factor in cardiac surgery, but gender-dependent outcomes following minimally invasive mitral surgery remain poorly understood.
Does a heart-team approach to minimally invasive mitral surgery eliminate female gender as an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes?
Cohort (n=302)
No
Does a heart-team approach to minimally invasive mitral surgery eliminate female gender as an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes?
A multidisciplinary heart-team approach with patient-tailored decision making in minimally invasive mitral surgery appears to mitigate the typically increased surgical risk associated with female gender, resulting in comparable mid-term survival.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparable mid-term outcomes by sex after heart-team guided minimally invasive mitral surgery; hypothesis-generating that tailored approaches may mitigate female risk but requires prospective confirmation.
Background: There is increasing evidence that female gender is an independent risk factor for cardiac surgery. Minimally invasive mitral surgery (MIV) has proven to have excellent long-term results, but little is known about gender-dependent outcomes. The aim of our study was to analyze our heart team's decision-based MIV-specialized cohort. Methods: In-hospital and follow-up data were retrospectively collected. The cohort was divided into gender groups and propensity-matched groups. Results: Between 22 July 2013 and 31 December 2022, 302 consecutive patients underwent MIV. Before matching, the total cohort showed that women were older, had a higher EuroSCORE II, were more symptomatic, and had more complex valve pathology and tricuspid regurgitation resulting in more valve replacements and tricuspid repairs. Intensive and hospital stays were longer. In-hospital deaths (n = 3, all women) were comparable, with more atrial fibrillation in women. The median follow-up time was 3.44 (0.008–8.9) years. The ejection fraction, NYHA, and recurrent regurgitation were low and comparable and atrial fibrillation more frequent in women. The calculated 5-year survival and freedom from re-intervention were comparable (p = 0.9 and p = 0.2). Propensity matching compared 101 well-balanced pairs; women still had fewer resections and more atrial fibrillation. During the follow-up, women had a better ejection fraction. The calculated 5-year survival and freedom from re-intervention were comparable (p = 0.3 and p = 0.3). Conclusions: Despite women being older and sicker, with more complex valve pathology and subsequent replacement, early and mid-term mortality and the need for reoperation were low and comparable before and after propensity matching, which might be the result of the MIV setting combined with our patient-tailored decision-making. We believe that a multidisciplinary heart team approach is crucial to optimize patient outcomes in MIV, and it might also reduce the widely reported increased surgical risk in female patients. Further studies are needed to prove our findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Passos et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease requiring surgery (n=302). Female gender vs. Male gender was evaluated on 5-year survival (propensity-matched cohort) (p=0.3). Female gender was not associated with reduced 5-year survival or freedom from re-intervention compared to men in a propensity-matched cohort undergoing minimally invasive mitral surgery.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: