Why the study?
Does balloon endovascular aortic occlusion reduce cerebral microembolic events compared to transthoracic aortic clamping in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery?
Does balloon endovascular aortic occlusion reduce cerebral microembolic events compared to transthoracic aortic clamping in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery?
In patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery, endovascular balloon aortic occlusion results in fewer cerebral microembolic events compared to transthoracic aortic clamping.
Endovascular balloon occlusion may be associated with fewer emboli during minimally invasive mitral surgery; this Level 3 finding leaves open the need for randomized confirmation.
To evaluate micro embolic events occurrence during minimally invasive mitral valve procedures, comparing balloon endovascular aortic occlusion (Group I) and transthoracic aortic clamping technique (Group II), 36 patients (20 in Group I and 16 in Group II) undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery were selected by CT scan and Doppler studies for absence of atherosclerotic disease at aortic, coronary or peripheral level. Assignment to one of the two groups was made on the basis of surgeon's preference. Continuous automated intra-operative transcranial Doppler was used to monitor micro embolic events during five operative steps: cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) setup, time interval from CPB start until aortic clamp positioning, first minute after clamp-on, first minute after clamp-off, first ten minutes after CPB weaning start. More embolic events were observed in Group II than in Group I (total 143.4+/-30.6 per patient vs. 78.9+/-28.6 per patient). A large amount of embolic events occurring mainly when the aortic clamp was positioned and released accounted for the observed differences. In a low risk population for embolic events occurrence, endovascular balloon aortic clamping determined less embolic signals than transthoracic aortic clamping.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daniele Maselli (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: