Key result
Minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement significantly reduced postoperative hospital length of stay (10.5 vs 14.2 days) and blood transfusion volume compared to conventional surgery.
Why the study?
The clinical safety and feasibility of minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement via a right thoracic minimal incision had not been established in patients aged over 65 years.
Does minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement via a right thoracic minimal incision improve postoperative outcomes compared to conventional mitral valve replacement in patients aged over 65 years with mitral valve disease?
Cohort (n=45)
No
Does minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement via a right thoracic minimal incision improve postoperative outcomes compared to conventional mitral valve replacement in patients aged over 65 years with mitral valve disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 10.5% vs 14.2%
p-value: p=0.047
Minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement is safe and feasible in older patients, offering advantages in recovery metrics compared to conventional surgery.
Associated with faster recovery in older mitral valve patients; leaves open confirmation of benefits and safety in randomized trials.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze and summarize the clinical safety and feasibility of minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement via a right thoracic minimal incision in patients aged over 65 years. METHODS: The clinical data of 45 patients over 65 years old who had mitral valve disease were analyzed retrospectively from January 2014 to January 2017 at Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University. The patients were divided into two groups; 20 patients in group A, who underwent minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement via a right thoracic minimal incision, and 25 patients in group B, who underwent conventional mitral valve replacement. We collected and analyzed their relevant clinical data. RESULTS: The operation was completed successfully in both groups. Compared with group B, group A was clearly superior for postoperative analgesia time, postoperative hospital length of stay, thoracic drainage liquid, blood transfusion, and length of incision. There were no differences between the two groups in postoperative severe complications and mortality. More patients in group B had pulmonary infections and poor incision healing, while more patients in group A had postoperative pneumothorax and subcutaneous emphysema. CONCLUSION: In patients aged over 65 years, minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement with a small incision in the right chest had the same clinical safety and efficacy as the conventional method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease (n=45). Minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement vs. Conventional mitral valve replacement was evaluated on Postoperative hospital length of stay (days) (p=0.047). Minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve replacement significantly reduced postoperative hospital length of stay (10.5 vs 14.2 days) and blood transfusion volume compared to conventional surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: