Key result
Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery significantly reduced intensive care unit stay (1.36 vs 3.6 days) compared to median full sternotomy, despite requiring longer cardiopulmonary bypass times.
Why the study?
Although mitral valve surgery is routinely performed via median full sternotomy, the early post-operative outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery compared to sternotomy required further investigation.
Does minimally invasive mitral valve surgery improve early post-operative outcomes compared to median full sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery?
Observational (n=52)
No
Does minimally invasive mitral valve surgery improve early post-operative outcomes compared to median full sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.36% vs 3.6%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with faster post-operative recovery and shorter hospital stays, though it requires longer cardiopulmonary bypass times compared to full sternotomy.
Shorter ICU stay may favor minimally invasive approach in selected patients; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Background: Mitral valve surgery is routinely performed through a Median full sternotomy (MFS) with excellent long term outcomes. Minimally invasive mitral (MIMVS) valve surgery is also a surgical approach that improves operative outcomes. In this study we report early post-operative outcomes in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery compared with MFS access with reference to Blood Loss, Wound infections, post-operative Recovery, Morbidity, Mortality and others variables. Patient and Methods: This study was a prospective data collection from 52 consecutive patients who underwent isolated mitral valve surgery at our institution from November 2017 to October 2019. Population study was divided to two groups, MIMVS (group I n= 26) and MFS (group II n=26). Pre-operative planning were performed so that to obtain similar characteristics. Intra and post-operative data were analysed. Results: The baselines characteristics were similar in both groups. Of the 26 patients in group I, 23 (88.46%) underwent mitral valve replacement and 3 a mitral valve repair. All the patients in group II underwent mitral valve replacement. There was no difference in term of mortality and morbidity. MIMVS was associated with longer CPB time (mean 161.9 vs 89.8 mins, P =.025) but similar ACC (99 mins vs 64 P=.468) time. MIMVS Patients had likely lower incidence of red blood cells transfusion (12.2% vs 34.7%,), post-operative haemoglobin was similar before transfusion. Haemorrhage complications were more likely in the group II (26.08 vs 7.7%); requiring inotropic support was found to be higher in the group II (54.5 vs 19%). In addition, patients in the MIMVS group had a shorter mechanical ventilation time (1.6 [1-6] vs 3.6 [2-8] hours; P <.01), shorter ICU stay 1.36 [1-6] vs 3.6 [2-8] days, p<.01. Length of hospital stay and chest tube stay were found to be shorter, respectively 6.9 [6-16] vs 7, 7 [7-13] and (1.38 [1-2] days vs 2.64 [2-4], P <.01). Wound infections were not found in both groups. Conclusion: Although the controversy interest of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery, it may be associated with less blood loss, faster post-operative recovery but increases operation time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study conducted an observational in Isolated mitral valve disease (n=52). Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery vs. Median full sternotomy was evaluated on Intensive care unit (ICU) stay in days (p=<0.0001). Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery significantly reduced intensive care unit stay (1.36 vs 3.6 days) compared to median full sternotomy, despite requiring longer cardiopulmonary bypass times.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: