Surgical approaches to the mitral valve: variable paths to the same destination

Atrial approaches in mitral valve surgery: a propensity analysis of differences in the incidence of clinically relevant adverse effects

BACKGROUND

The lack of evidence on complications using mitral valve approaches leaves the choice of risk exposure to the surgeon's preference, based on individual experience, speed, ease, and quality of exposure.

METHODS

The present study analysed patients undergoing mitral valve surgery using a superior transseptal approach or a left-atrial approach between 2006 and 2018. We included first-time elective mitral valve procedures, isolated, or combined, without a history of rhythm disturbances. We used propensity score matching based on 26 perioperative variables. The primary endpoint was the association between the superior transeptal approach and clinically significant adverse outcomes, including arrhythmias, need for a permanent pacemaker, cerebrovascular events, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 652 patients met the inclusion criteria; 391 received the left atrial approach, and 261 received the superior transseptal approach. After matching, 96 patients were compared with 69 patients, respectively. The distribution of the preoperative and perioperative variables was similar. There was no difference in the incidence of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias or the need for treatment. The incidence of nodal rhythm (p = 0.008) and length of stay in intensive care (p = 0.04) were higher in the superior transseptal group, but the need for permanent pacemaker implantation was the same. Likewise, there was no difference in the need for anticoagulation due to arrhythmia, the incidence of cerebrovascular events or mortality in the postoperative period or in the long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We did not find an association with permanent heart rhythm disorders or any other significant adverse clinical outcome. Therefore, the superior transeptal approach is useful and safe for mitral valve exposure.