Key result
Minimally invasive beating heart technique significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time (130.2 vs 165.2 minutes), intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay compared to conventional median sternotomy in patients with a giant left ventricle.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to analyze the efficacy of the minimally invasive beating heart technique for mitral valve surgery in patients with a giant left ventricle.
Does a minimally invasive beating heart technique improve perioperative outcomes compared to conventional median arrested heart technique in patients with giant left ventricle undergoing redo mitral valve surgery?
Cohort (n=80)
No
Does a minimally invasive beating heart technique improve perioperative outcomes compared to conventional median arrested heart technique in patients with giant left ventricle undergoing redo mitral valve surgery?
In high-risk patients with giant left ventricles undergoing redo mitral valve surgery, a minimally invasive beating heart technique is safe and significantly improves perioperative metrics such as blood loss, transfusion requirements, and hospital length of stay compared to conventional sternotomy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Minimally invasive beating heart mitral valve surgery in giant LV may be feasible; leaves open comparative efficacy versus conventional approaches.
Purpose: To analyze the efficacy of minimally invasive beating heart technique for mitral valve surgery in the cardiac patients with giant left ventricle.Methods: Eighty cardiac patients with giant left ventricle according to the diagnostic criteria that left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was ≥70 mm, who underwent mitral valve surgery at our center from January 2006 to January 2019 were analyzed. We divided all patients into minimally invasive beating heart technique group (n=30) and conventional median arrested heart technique group (n=50) according to the surgical methods. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared between two groups.Results: Minimally invasive beating heart technique compared to the conventional median arrested heart technique for mitral valve surgery in the cardiac patients with giant left ventricle had significant differences in operation time(P=0.002), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time(P<0.001), intraoperative blood loss(P<0.001), postoperative transfusion ratio(P=0.01), postoperative transfusion amount(P<0.001), postoperative drainage volume(P=0.001), extubation time(P=0.04), intensive care unit (ICU) stay time(P=0.04) and postoperative hospital stay time(P<0.001), but no significant differences in re-exploration for bleeding, postoperative 30-day mortality, postoperative complications and six months postoperative echocardiographic parameters.Conclusions: Using the method of minimally invasive beating heart technique for mitral valve surgery in the cardiac patients with giant left ventricle is effective reliable meanwhile reduce the operation time and CPB time, decrease the transfusion ratio and transfusion amount, shorten postoperative ICU stay and hospital stay time, promote the early extubation so that accelerate the patients’ early recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Giant left ventricle requiring redo mitral valve surgery (n=80). Minimally invasive beating heart technique vs. Conventional median sternotomy arrested heart technique was evaluated on Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time in minutes (p=<0.001). Minimally invasive beating heart technique significantly reduced cardiopulmonary bypass time (130.2 vs 165.2 minutes), intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay compared to conventional median sternotomy in patients with a giant left ventricle.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: