Key result
Preoperative 3D CT reconstruction identifies ~28% of patients ineligible for minimally invasive valve surgery.
Why the study?
The superiority of minimally invasive valve surgery has not been proven, and better patient selection may enhance its advantages through individualized operative strategy.
Observational (n=39)
No
May refine eligibility for minimally invasive valve surgery; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before changing practice.
OBJECTIVES: With the emergence of a new concept aimed at individualization of patient care, the focus will shift from whether a minimally invasive procedure is better than conventional treatment, to the question of which patients will benefit most from which technique? The superiority of minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) has not yet been proved. We believe that through better patient selection advantages of this technique can become more pronounced. In our current study, we evaluate the feasibility of 3D computed tomography (CT) imaging reconstruction in the preoperative planning of patients referred for MIVS. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all consecutive patients who were referred for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) to a single surgeon in a tertiary referral centre for MIVS between March 2014 and 2015. Prospective preoperative planning was done for all patients and was based on evaluations by a multidisciplinary heart-team, an echocardiography, conventional CT images and 3D CT reconstruction models. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were included in our study; 16 for mitral valve surgery (MVS) and 23 patients for aortic valve replacement (AVR). Eleven patients (69%) within the MVS group underwent MIMVS. Five patients (31%) underwent conventional MVS. Findings leading to exclusion for MIMVS were a tortuous or slender femoro-iliac tract, calcification of the aortic bifurcation, aortic elongation and pericardial calcifications. Furthermore, 2 patients had a change of operative strategy based on preoperative planning. Seventeen (74%) patients in the AVR group underwent MIAVR. Six patients (26%) underwent conventional AVR. Indications for conventional AVR instead of MIAVR were an elongated ascending aorta, ascending aortic calcification and ascending aortic dilatation. One patient (6%) in the MIAVR group was converted to a sternotomy due to excessive intraoperative bleeding. Two mortalities were reported during conventional MVS. There were no mortalities reported in the MIMVS, MIAVR or conventional AVR group. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative planning of minimally invasive left-sided valve surgery with 3D CT reconstruction models is a useful and feasible method to determine operative strategy and exclude patients ineligible for a minimally invasive approach, thus potentially preventing complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heuts et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Left-sided valve surgery (n=39). Preoperative planning with 3D CT reconstruction models was evaluated on Feasibility of 3D CT imaging reconstruction in determining operative strategy. Preoperative planning with 3D CT reconstruction models in 39 patients referred for minimally invasive left-sided valve surgery identified 11 patients ineligible for the minimally invasive approach.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: