Why the study?
As minimally invasive mitral valve surgery evolves, the association between arterial cannulation strategy and perioperative adverse events required evaluation.
Does ascending aortic cannulation improve 30-day safety and efficacy outcomes compared to femoral cannulation in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery?
Does ascending aortic cannulation improve 30-day safety and efficacy outcomes compared to femoral cannulation in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery?
In patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery, ascending aortic cannulation is safe and is associated with significantly fewer access-site complications and perioperative delirium than femoral cannulation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Similar 30-day death or stroke across strategies warrants caution; leaves open optimal cannulation choice pending randomized data.
OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIV-MVS) continues to evolve through refinements in surgical technique and perioperative management. This study evaluated the association between arterial cannulation strategy and perioperative adverse events. METHODS: Three arterial cannulations were used: central ascending aortic cannulation (AC), open femoral cannulation via groin cutdown (oFC), and percutaneous femoral cannulation (pFC) using pre-closure devices. Patients from 2 centres were assessed for the composite safety end-point of 30-day mortality or stroke, the composite efficacy end-point of all-cause death, stroke, or cannulation-related adverse events, and postoperative delirium. Cannulation-related adverse events included conversion to sternotomy or re-thoracotomy, vessel dissection or bleeding, and cannulation-site infection. RESULTS: Between January 2013 and January 2020, 823 patients underwent MIV-MVS. Aortic cannulation was performed in 266 patients (32.3%), oFC in 396 (48.1%), and pFC in 161 (19.6%). The composite end-point of 30-day all-cause death or stroke occurred in 19 patients (2.3%) and was similar between AC and FC (odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% CI, 0.41-3.16). The extended composite efficacy end-point occurred less frequently with AC than with any FC (OR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.21-0.94), mainly due to fewer access-site complications. Aortic cannulation was also associated with lower odds of perioperative delirium (OR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.29-0.86). No significant difference was observed between oFC and pFC. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing MIV-MVS, 30-day death or stroke was similar across cannulation strategies. Aortic cannulation was associated with a lower rate of cannulation-related complications and less perioperative delirium than FC, largely reflecting fewer access-site complications. Further prospective external validation is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sromicki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: