Why the study?
The study investigated the perioperative safety and advantages of performing minimally invasive valve surgery and conducted a preliminary examination of combined simultaneous surgery.
Does combined simultaneous surgery during minimally invasive valve surgery affect perioperative safety and recovery times compared to minimally invasive valve surgery alone in patients with heart valve disorders?
Does combined simultaneous surgery during minimally invasive valve surgery affect perioperative safety and recovery times compared to minimally invasive valve surgery alone in patients with heart valve disorders?
Combined simultaneous surgery during minimally invasive valve surgery appears safe and feasible without significantly prolonging ICU or hospital stay, though larger studies are needed.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the perioperative safety and advantages of performing a minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) and conducting a preliminary examination of the combined simultaneous surgery (CSS). METHODS: A total of 29 patients (16 men and 13 women; mean age, 58.41 ± 13.08 years) who underwent MIVS at our center from July 2021 to March 2022 were selected. Among them, 16 patients underwent aortic valve surgery (AVS), 13 patients underwent mitral valve surgery (MVS), and four patients additionally underwent CSS. RESULTS: The MIVS time ranged from 165 to 420 min, with a mean of 230.54 ± 54.61 min; the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time ranged from 54 to 164 min, with a mean of 120.24 ± 25.98 min; the aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time ranged from 36 to 118 min, with a mean of 78.66 ± 21.01 min and an automatic heart resuscitating rate was 89.66%; the mean tracheal intubation time was 6.30 ± 3.87 h, and the median total postoperative drainage was 317.5 (35, 1470) ml. No difference was observed between preoperative and postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (61.90% ± 6.28% vs. 60.21% ± 5.52%, P = 0.281). The difference in postoperative drainage (419.20 ml ± 377.20 ml vs. 588.75 ml ± 673.63 ml, P = .461), tracheal intubation time (6.66 h ± 4.27 h vs. 4.63 h ± 1.11 h, P = .359), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (3.96 ± 8.62 days vs. 2.00 ± 0.816 days, P = .658), and postoperative hospital stay (9.96 ± 8.45 days vs. 8.25 ± 1.26 days, P = .694) between MIVS and CSS was not significant. CONCLUSION: MIVS in our center may be safe and effective. Additionally, CSS may be a feasible option that could be performed after a thorough preoperative evaluation and multidisciplinary discussion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ling et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: