Why the study?
Given the controversial benefits of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), the study evaluated the impact of surgical approach on cardiac function after lung resection using myocardial work analysis.
Does video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) preserve cardiac function better than thoracotomy in patients undergoing lung resection?
Does video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) preserve cardiac function better than thoracotomy in patients undergoing lung resection?
VATS is associated with better preservation of right ventricular function compared to thoracotomy in patients undergoing lung resection.
Considering the controversial benefits of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), we intended to evaluate the impact of surgical approach on cardiac function after lung resection using myocardial work analysis. Echocardiographic data of 45 patients (25 thoracotomy vs. 20 VATS) were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) 2 weeks before and after surgery, including two-dimensional speckle tracking and tissue doppler imaging. No notable changes in left ventricular (LV) function, assessed mainly using the LV global longitudinal strain (GLS), global myocardial work index (GMWI), and global work efficiency (GWE), were observed. Right ventricular (RV) TTE values, including tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), tricuspid annular systolic velocity (TASV), and RV free-wall GLS (RVFWGLS), indicated greater RV function impairment in the thoracotomy group than in the VATS group [TAPSE (mm): 17.90 ± 3.80 vs. 20.60 ± 3.50, p < 0.018; TASV (cm/s): 12.40 ± 2.90 vs. 14.60 ± 2.50, p < 0.010; RVFWGLS (%): −11.50 ± 8.50 vs. −17.50 ± 9.70, p < 0.033), respectively]. Unlike RV function, LV function remained preserved after lung resection. The thoracotomy group exhibited greater RV function impairment than did the VATS group. Further studies should evaluate the long-term impact of surgical approach on cardiac function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kolashov et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: