Key result
Minimally invasive mitral surgery linked to ~69% fewer pacemaker insertions and shorter stays versus conventional sternotomy.
Why the study?
Following an institutional shift in preferred surgical approach, the authors sought to assess the quality and safety of minimally invasive surgery compared with conventional sternotomy in a non-high volume center.
Does minimally invasive surgery improve postoperative outcomes compared to conventional sternotomy in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery at a non-high volume center?
Observational (n=254)
No
Does minimally invasive surgery improve postoperative outcomes compared to conventional sternotomy in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery at a non-high volume center?
Absolute Event Rate: 1% vs 2%
p-value: p=> 0.5
Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is a feasible and safe alternative to conventional sternotomy even in non-high volume centers, offering shorter hospital stays and fewer pacemaker insertions.
MIS associated with shorter stay and fewer pacemakers than CS despite longer operative times; supports feasibility in non-high-volume centers but leaves open need for randomized trials.
Objectives In September 2019, the preferred surgical approach shifted for patients undergoing mitral valve (MV) surgery at our institution. The aim of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgery (MIS) with prior conventional sternotomy (CS) approach, to assess quality and safety of MIS in a non-high volume center.Methods This single-center retrospective observational study comprised 254 patients, 102 CS patients and 152 MIS patients, who underwent MV surgery for mitral regurgitation with or without concomitant procedures (i.e. tricuspid valve surgery, atrial fibrillation ablation, closure of ASD) between January 2015 and October 2023.Results CS patients were older with a higher preoperative risk profile. Mitral repair was the predominant procedure regardless of surgical approach. MIS had longer intraoperative times, yet were equal to CS in regard to myocardial injury, intensive care unit stay and postoperative complications. MIS had lower rates of permanent pacemaker insertions (4% vs. 13%; p < 0.014) and a shorter postoperative length of stay (5 vs. 7 days; p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was low (1% vs 2%; p > 0.5). Proposed learning curve of MIS was demonstrated by a tendency of reduced intraoperative times with growing experience.Conclusions MIS is a feasible alternative to the CS approach for MV surgery even at non-high volume centers. MV surgery with MIS results in a shorter postoperative length of stay, with comparable outcomes in terms of low mortality as well as surgical and postoperative morbidity. We believe that the prolonged intraoperative times will shorten with increased experience of these procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Granfeldt et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Mitral regurgitation (n=254). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) vs. Conventional sternotomy (CS) was evaluated on 30-day mortality (p=> 0.5). Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery reduced postoperative length of stay (5 vs. 7 days; p<0.001) and permanent pacemaker insertions (4% vs. 13%) compared to conventional sternotomy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: