Key result
Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery was associated with similar 8-year reintervention-free survival compared to sternotomy (86.1% vs 84.1%, p=0.40).
Why the study?
Short-term and midterm outcomes needed to be compared between sternotomy and minimally invasive approaches for mitral valve surgery.
Does a minimally invasive approach improve short- and midterm outcomes compared to sternotomy in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery?
Population
2404 mitral valve procedures (639 propensity score-matched pairs) across three UK hospitals
Comparison
Minimally invasive approach vs sternotomy
Design
Multicentre propensity score-matched study
Follow-up
8 years
Authors
Loading...
Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery was associated with shorter stay and fewer transfusions without survival difference; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=2,404)
Yes
Does a minimally invasive approach improve short- and midterm outcomes compared to sternotomy in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 86.1% vs 84.1%
p-value: p=0.40
Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery provides comparable 8-year reintervention-free survival to sternotomy, while significantly reducing the need for blood transfusions and shortening hospital length of stay.
Grant et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve surgery (n=2,404). Minimally invasive approach vs. Sternotomy was evaluated on Midterm reintervention free survival (p=0.40). Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery was associated with similar 8-year reintervention-free survival compared to sternotomy (86.1% vs 84.1%, p=0.40).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: