Key result
Increasing team experience in minimally invasive mitral valve repair over 6 years significantly reduced chest revisions, total drainage, and hospitalization time, with an overall mortality of 0.6%.
Why the study?
Minimally invasive mitral repair is less traumatic than traditional surgery, but it is challenging and its institutional learning curve outcomes required investigation.
Does increasing institutional experience (learning curve) improve in-hospital clinical outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve repair?
Observational (n=173)
No
Does increasing institutional experience (learning curve) improve in-hospital clinical outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve repair?
Increasing institutional experience with minimally invasive mitral valve repair is associated with significant reductions in postoperative drainage, chest revisions, and hospitalization time, while maintaining a low rate of major complications.
Team experience was associated with fewer revisions and shorter stays; supports learning curve effects while leaving open randomized validation.
Introduction: Minimally invasive mitral repair is less traumatic and more acceptable for the patient than traditional surgery. However, it is a challenging procedure that requires effort from all the personnel involved. Aim: To investigate the results of the minimally invasive mitral valve repair learning curve at the institution. Material and methods: The indication for the surgery was severe mitral regurgitation. Patients with other valvular insufficiency, body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m 2 , ejection fraction (EF) < 45%, aortic dilatation, reoperation, pleural adhesions, coronary artery disease requiring invasive treatment, and pregnant women were disqualified. The patients were assigned to one of three groups regarding their surgery date -group 1 (2012-2013), group 2 (2014-2015) and group 3 (2016-2017). The primary endpoints were death, myocardial infarction, stroke, an reoperation for mitral dysfunction. The investigation was performed to determine preoperative parameters (EuroSCORE, age, sex, BMI, arrhythmias, EF), intraoperative parameters (procedure, cross-clamp, extracorporeal circulation), and postoperative parameters (chest revision, transfusion, drainage, ventilation time, pleurocentesis, hospitalization time). Results: There were 173 patients in total. One patient from group 1 (0.6% overall) died. No myocardial infarction or stroke was observed in any of the three groups. Chest revision count (5 vs. 1 vs. 1; p = 0.0004), total drainage (797.20 vs. 517.92 vs. 449.69; p = 0.0018) and hospitalization time (7.89 vs. 7.18 vs. 6.73; p = 0.0005) were significantly different among the groups. The ventilation time, transfusion number and pleurocentesis count did not differ significantly. Conclusions: The procedure is safe and ensures optimal perioperative results. The number of complications is low and acceptable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gerber et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Severe mitral regurgitation (n=173). Minimally invasive mitral valve repair learning curve (successive time periods) vs. Earlier time periods was evaluated on Death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and reoperation for mitral dysfunction. Increasing team experience in minimally invasive mitral valve repair over 6 years significantly reduced chest revisions, total drainage, and hospitalization time, with an overall mortality of 0.6%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: