Key result
Minimally invasive surgery for native mitral valve endocarditis was associated with shorter operative time, fewer transfusions, and a lower rate of reintubation (5.1% vs 25.6%; P=0.021) than sternotomy.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare clinical outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and median sternotomy in patients with native mitral valve infective endocarditis.
Does minimally invasive surgery improve operative and postoperative outcomes compared to median sternotomy in patients with native mitral valve infective endocarditis?
Cohort (n=154)
Does minimally invasive surgery improve operative and postoperative outcomes compared to median sternotomy in patients with native mitral valve infective endocarditis?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.1% vs 25.6%
p-value: p=0.021
Minimally invasive surgery for native mitral valve endocarditis is associated with shorter operative times, reduced transfusion requirements, and improved respiratory outcomes compared to median sternotomy in selected patients.
MIS may confer perioperative benefits in selected mitral IE cases; leaves open need for prospective RCTs before broader adoption.
OBJECTIVES: The present study compared the clinical outcomes between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and median sternotomy (MS) in patients with native mitral valve infective endocarditis. METHODS: From 2009 to 2019, a total of 154 patients with acute (n = 131, 85%) or subacute (n = 23, 15%) native mitral valve infective endocarditis were included in the study. One-to-one nearest neighbour propensity score matching considering endocarditis severity using the dedicated De Feo score and 19 other clinically relevant baseline variables resulted in a population of 39 matched pairs. The matched cohort was investigated regarding operative and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Both groups showed similar results regarding cardiopulmonary bypass time [MIS: 96 min (77-138), MS: 99 min (88-127); P = 0.780] and aortic cross-clamp time [MIS: 64 min (54-90), MS: 65 min (59-83); P = 0.563], whereas overall operative time was shorter through minimally invasive access [MIS: 138 min (112-196), MS: 187 min (175-230); P = 0.005]. Although the rate of revision for bleeding was similar in both groups [MIS: 12.8% (n = 5), MS: 10.3% (n = 4); P = 1.000], MIS was associated with fewer red blood cell unit transfusions [MIS: 1 unit (0-4), MS: 4 units (2-10); P = 0.001] and fewer fresh frozen plasma unit transfusions [MIS: 0 units (0-0), MS: 1 unit (0-5); P = 0.002]. MIS was associated with a shorter ventilation time [MIS: 708 min (429-1236), MS: 1440 min (659-4411); P = 0.024] and a lower rate of reintubation after extubation [MIS: 5.1% (n = 2), MS: 25.6% (n = 10); P = 0.021]. CONCLUSIONS: In patients suffering from native mitral valve infective endocarditis, MIS provides significant clinical benefits over sternotomy in selected patients. SUBJECT COLLECTION: 117, 121.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kofler et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in native mitral valve infective endocarditis (n=154). Minimally invasive surgery vs. Median sternotomy was evaluated on reintubation after extubation (p=0.021). Minimally invasive surgery for native mitral valve endocarditis was associated with shorter operative time, fewer transfusions, and a lower rate of reintubation (5.1% vs 25.6%; P=0.021) than sternotomy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: