Key result
Robotic bioprosthetic MVR shows safety and feasibility with 0% operative mortality and no valve degeneration.
Why the study?
The safety and feasibility of robotic mitral valve replacements with bioprosthetic valves require investigation given increased bioprosthetic valve use and patient preference for minimally invasive procedures.
Does robotic mitral valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves improve clinical outcomes and left atrial dimensions in patients requiring mitral valve replacement?
Observational (n=52)
No
Does robotic mitral valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves improve clinical outcomes and left atrial dimensions in patients requiring mitral valve replacement?
Robotic mitral valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves is safe and feasible, demonstrating no operative mortality and significant reduction in left atrial dimensions at mid-term follow-up.
May support robotic bioprosthetic MVR in experienced centers; leaves open need for randomized durability comparisons.
OBJECTIVES: Robotic mitral valve replacement (MVR) emerged in the late 1990s as an alternative approach to conventional sternotomy. With the increased use of bioprosthetic valves worldwide and strong patient desire for minimally invasive procedures, the safety and feasibility of robotic MVRs with bioprosthetic valves require investigation. METHODS: Between January 2013 and May 2017, 52 consecutive patients underwent robotic MVRs using the da Vinci Si surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Their mean age was 55.1 ± 13.8 years, and mean EuroSCORE II was 2.25% ± 1.25%. Among the enrolled patients, 32 (61.5%) patients presented with preoperative atrial fibrillation, 6 (11.5%) patients had experienced embolic stroke and 5 (9.6%) patients had undergone previous cardiac surgery. The operations were performed using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) under an arrested heart status. RESULTS: Five porcine valves and 47 bovine valves were implanted. A total of 38 (73.1%) patients received concomitant cardiac procedures, including 26 Cox-maze IV procedures, 12 tricuspid valve repairs and 5 atrial septal defect repairs. The mean aortic cross-clamp and CPB times were 141.3 ± 34.3 min and 217.1 ± 42.0 min, respectively. There was no operative mortality. During the mean follow-up of 29 ± 15 months, no prosthesis degeneration was noted. The average left atrial dimension exhibited a significant decrease from 51.4 ± 11.5 mm to 42.6 ± 10.1 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic MVR with bioprosthetic valves is safe, feasible and reproducible. Mid-term results are encouraging. Both aortic cross-clamp and CPB times can be improved with experience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuo et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Mitral valve disease requiring replacement (n=52). Robotic mitral valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves was evaluated on Operative mortality. Robotic mitral valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves was safe and feasible, with 0% operative mortality and no prosthesis degeneration over a mean follow-up of 29 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: