Atrial fibrillation early postoperatively following minimally invasive cardiac valvular surgery

Late redo-port access surgery after port access surgery

OBJECTIVES

This study presents the first report on short- and long-term outcomes in redo-port access surgery after previous port access surgery (redo-PAS-PAS) for new or recurrent mitral valve (MV) and tricuspid valve (TV) disease.

METHODS

Our current surgical team performed redo-PAS-PAS in 26 consecutive patients who had previous port access surgery (mean age 65.8 ± 13.3 years, 46.2% female, 42.3% older than 70 years, mean logistical EuroSCORE 22.5 ± 21.6%) between 1 February 1997 and 30 June 2014. Surgical indications included among others MV prosthesis dysfunction (n = 8, 30.8%), endocarditis (n = 10, 38.5%) and TV dysfunction (n = 3, 11.5%). The mean time interval between primary PAS and redo-PAS-PAS was 70.32 ± 57.4 months.

RESULTS

Redo-PAS-PAS procedures included MV replacement (n = 19, 73.1%), MV repair (n = 5, 19.2%), and TV repair (n = 2, 7.7%). Sternotomy conversion was required in 5 patients (19.2%), of which 4 (15.4%) were early conversions due to lung adhesion and 1 (3.8%) due to a late intraoperative complication. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were 163.3 ± 57.9 and 101.2 ± 43.8 min, respectively. Postoperative mechanical ventilation longer than 72 h was required in 4 patients (15.4%). In-hospital morbidities included hospital-acquired pneumonia (n = 3, 11.5%), postoperative air leaks (n = 2, 7.7%) and revision for bleeding (n = 1, 3.8%). The mean length of hospital stay was 16.1 days. Long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up were 48.3 ± 39.2 and 44.6 ± 32.9 months, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier analyses for survival and freedom from mitral and tricuspid valve reintervention (n = 26) at 5 years were 83.9 and 95.8%, respectively, with 91.3% of surviving patients classified as being NYHA II or less. Echocardiographic follow-up showed no residual mitral regurgitation more than grade I in all redo mitral valve repairs and no paravalvular leak post-valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Redo-PAS-PAS is our routine approach and we apply this strategy in the majority of patients who had previous port access surgery. The predicted procedure-related mortality, morbidities, patient satisfaction and long-term outcomes are favourable.

Minimally invasive primary aortic valve surgery: the OLV Aalst experience

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate our in-hospital outcomes with primary J-sternotomy aortic valve surgery since the initiation of our program in 1997.

METHODS

Between October 1(st) 1997 and August 31(st) 2014, 768 patients (mean age: 69.1±11.2 years, 46.6% females, 15.6% aged greater than 80 years) underwent primary JS-AVS. Additional risk factors included diabetes mellitus (n=98, 12.2%), peripheral vascular disease (n=42, 5.5%) and body mass index greater than 30 (n=144, 18.8%). The mean logistical EuroSCORE I was 5.46%±4.5%.

RESULTS

Aortic valve replacement and repair were performed in 758 (98.7%) and 10 (1.3%) patients respectively, for isolated valve stenosis (n=472, 61.8%), incompetence (n=56, 7.3%) and mixed valve disease (n=236, 30.9%). Valve pathology included sclerosis (n=516, 67.2%), rheumatic disease (n=110, 14.3%) and endocarditis (n=10, 1.3%). Reasons for conversion to full sternotomy (n=23, 3.0%) included porcelain ascending aorta (n=3, 0.4%), inadequate visualization (n=2, 0.3%) and intra-operative complications (n=18, 2.3%). Mean length of hospital stay was 11.0±7.4 days. Morbidity included stroke (n=15, 2.0%), revision or re-exploration (n=52, 6.8%), atrial fibrillation (n=201, 26.2%) and sternitis (n=5, 0.7%). In-hospital mortality was 1.6% (n=12). Overall survival at 30 days was 98.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

JS-AVS is safe and is our routine approach for isolated aortic valve disease. Procedure related mortality is lower than predicted, conversion rates limited and significant morbidity minimal.

Anterolateral minithoracotomy versus median sternotomy for mitral valve disease: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Mitral valve disease tends to be treated with anterolateral minithoracotomy (ALMT) rather than median sternotomy (MS), as ALMT uses progressively smaller incisions to promote better cosmetic outcomes. This meta-analysis quantifies the effects of ALMT on surgical parameters and post-operative outcomes compared with MS.

METHODS

One randomized controlled study and four case-control studies, published in English from January 1996 to January 2013, were identified and evaluated.

RESULTS

ALMT showed a significantly longer cardiopulmonary bypass time (P=0.001) and aortic cross-clamp time (P=0.05) compared with MS. However, the benefits of ALMT were evident as demonstrated by a shorter length of hospital stay (P<0.00001). According to operative complications, the onset of new arrhythmias following ALMT decreased significantly as compared with MS (P=0.05); however, the incidence of peri-operative mortality (P=0.62), re-operation for bleeding (P=0.37), neurologic events (P=0.77), myocardial infarction (P=0.84), gastrointestinal complications (P=0.89), and renal insufficiency (P=0.67) were similar to these of MS. Long-term follow-up data were also examined, and revealed equivalent survival and freedom from mitral valve events.

CONCLUSIONS

Current clinical data suggest that ALMT is a safe and effective alternative to the conventional approach and is associated with better short-term outcomes and a trend towards longer survival.

Minimally invasive and alternative approaches for long-term LVAD placement: the Vanderbilt strategy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive and alternative strategies for implantation have been anecdotally reported for contemporary continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) placement.

METHODS

We reviewed our experience at a single center with alternative strategies for implantation of the HeartMate II and HeartWare CF-LVADs, in patients with advanced heart failure (HF). This featured article focuses on the associated surgical techniques and patient management pitfalls.

RESULTS

For appropriately selected cases, our group believes that these alternative strategies allow for the development of novel and less traumatic surgical approaches for CF-LVAD implantation. With reproducible outcomes, these approaches also promise the possibility of increasing the number of high-risk surgical patients who could benefit from CF-LVAD therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

This work has detailed a variety of less invasive alternative strategies for implantation of long-term LVADs. These newer approaches have the potential for significant advancements in the field of cardiothoracic surgery. Large-scale collaborative studies will be needed to clarify the potential advantages and disadvantages of these novel techniques on patient outcomes.

Minimally invasive mitral valve procedures: the current state

Since its early days, cardiac surgery has typically involved large incisions with complete access to the heart and the great vessels. After the popularization of the minimally invasive techniques in general surgery, cardiac surgeons began to experiment with minimal access techniques in the early 1990s. Although the goals of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) are fairly well established as decreased pain, shorter hospital stay, accelerated recuperation, improved cosmesis, and cost effectiveness, a strict definition of minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been more elusive. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery started with mitral valve procedures and then gradually expanded towards other valve procedures, coronary artery bypass grafting, and various types of simple congenital heart procedures. In this paper, the authors attempt to focus on the evolution, techniques, results, and the future perspective of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS).

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review

In the recent years minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has become a well-established and increasingly used option for managing patients with a mitral valve pathology. Nonetheless, whether the purported benefits of MIMVS translate into clinically important outcomes remains controversial. Therefore, in this paper we provide an overview of MIMVS and discuss results, morbidity, mortality, and quality of life following mitral minimally invasive procedures. MIMVS has been proven to be a feasible alternative to the conventional full sternotomy approach with low perioperative morbidity and short-term mortality. Reported benefits of MIMVS include also decreased postoperative pain, improved postoperative respiratory function, reduced surgical trauma, and greater patient satisfaction. Finally, compared to standard surgery, MIMVS demonstrated comparable efficacy across a range of long-term efficacy measures such as freedom from reoperation and long-term survival.

Minimally invasive video-assisted cardiac surgery: operative techniques, application fields and clinical outcomes

Minimally invasive video-assisted surgery through a right minithoracotomy has become the standard surgical approach for several cardiac diseases at many major centers worldwide. In this article we review the existing literature on the subject and describe different operative techniques, application fields and clinical outcomes.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The mitral valve has been traditionally approached through a median sternotomy. However, significant advances in surgical optics, instrumentation, tissue telemanipulation, and perfusion technology have allowed for mitral valve surgery to be performed using progressively smaller incisions including the minithoracotomy and hemisternotomy. Due to reports of excellent results, minimally invasive mitral valve surgery has become a standard of care at certain specialized centers worldwide. This meta-analysis quantifies the effects of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery on morbidity and mortality compared with conventional mitral surgery and demonstrates equivalent perioperative mortality (1641 patients, odds ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.15-1.42, p=0.18), reduced need for reoperation for bleeding (1553 patients, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90, p=0.02) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays (350 patients, weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.73, 95% CI -1.52 to 0.05, p=0.07). These benefits were evident despite longer cardiopulmonary bypass (WMD 25.81, 95% CI 13.13-38.50, p<0.0001) and cross-clamp times (WMD 20.91, 95% CI 8.79-33.04, p=0.0007) in the minimally invasive group. Case-control studies show consistently less pain and faster recovery compared to those having a conventional approach. Data for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery after previous cardiac surgery are limited but consistently demonstrate reduced blood loss, fewer transfusions and faster recovery compared to reoperative sternotomy. Long-term follow-up data from multiple cohort studies are also examined revealing equivalent survival and freedom from reoperation. Thus, current clinical data suggest that minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is a safe and a durable alternative to a conventional approach and is associated with less morbidity.

Prospective comparison between total sternotomy and ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement

Ministernotomy (MS) is an alternative for total sternotomy (TS) in aortic valve replacement. We compared these two approaches for results and adverse effects in a prospective study. From January to December 2000, 100 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement were included in two groups of 50 according to the surgical approach that used MS or TS; one senior surgeon performed all cases in each group. Valvular pathologies were either stenosis or insufficiency. Mean age was 63 +/- 14 years in MS, 67 +/- 12 in TS (p = ns). NYHA class was 2.7 +/- 0.5 in MS, 2.8 +/- 0.6 in TS (p = ns). Left ventricular ejection fraction was 58 +/- 12% in MS, 57 +/- 12% in TS (p = ns). There was a significant difference between MS and TS in aortic cross-clamping (66 +/- 14 min vs 48 +/- 9 min) and cardiopulmonary bypass (88 +/- 18 min vs 69 +/- 10 min, p < 0.01), but not in intervention times (2.8 +/- 0.4 hours vs 2.7 +/- 0.4 hours). Mean intensive care stay was reduced in MS (1.7 +/- 1.6 days vs 2.6 +/- 6 days, p < 0.05). Intubation times (12 +/- 7 hours vs 14 +/- 9 hours), 24 hours bleeding (394 +/- 219 mL vs 465 +/- 318), reintervention for hemostasis (4% vs 2%), rhythmic complications (14% vs 14%), and mortality at 1 month (2% vs 2%) were comparable in MS and TS. In aortic valve surgery, ministernotomy is technically more demanding and needs more time. It is as safe and as effective as conventional sternotomy but its eventual benefits, excepting upon cosmesis, are still to be defined.

Prospective comparison of minimally invasive and standard techniques for aortic valve replacement: initial experience in the first hundred patients

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed through a partial upper sternotomy. In this study we compared the early postoperative outcome in two groups of patients who underwent AVR with a minimally invasive procedure (n = 30) or with a conventional approach (n = 70). The predicted operative mortality (Parsonnet Index) was slightly higher in the conventional group (17.69 +/- 0.85 versus 12.7 +/- 1.02), reflecting the greater mean age of the patients (70.96 +/- 1.17 versus 64.20 +/- 2.57).

RESULTS

The distribution of the different etiologies of aortic valve pathology did not differ between groups. There was no postoperative death in the mini-invasive group. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the mini-invasive group, but the other operative parameters did not differ between groups. Postoperative morbidity regarding the need for blood transfusion, the duration of assisted ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and abnormalities of cardiac rhythm and conduction was slightly but not significantly reduced in the mini-invasive group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that a partial upper sternotomy is a safe and effective technique for AVR. Postoperative morbidity is not significantly reduced in patients undergoing AVR by this approach. Further studies in a larger patient population are necessary to assess whether postoperative morbidity is significantly reduced.

Minimal access aortic root, valve, and complex ascending aortic surgery

We report our entire experience with minimal access aortic root, valve, and complex ascending aortic surgery. A total of 290 consecutive patients underwent aortic root, valve, and ascending aortic surgery between July 1996 and February 2000. Four groups were identified: isolated aortic valve replacement (AV group, n = 227), aortic root replacement (AR group, n = 44), aortic valve replacement with concomitant replacement of the supracoronary ascending aorta (V/A group, n = 9), and isolated ascending aortic replacement (AA group, n = 10). The procedures were performed through a partial upper hemisternotomy (87%) or a right parasternal approach (13%). Overall mortality was 3.1% (n = 7) for the AV group, 2.3% (n = 1) for the AR group, 0% for the V/A group, and 10.0% (n = 1) for the AA group. Complications included reoperation for bleeding in 10 (4.5%), two (4.7%), one (11.1%), and one (11.1%) for the four groups respectively; and sternal wound infection in eight (3.6%) patients of the AV group and one (2.3%) patient of the AR group. Five (2.3%) patients of the AV group suffered stroke. Isolated or more complicated aortic valve, root and ascending aortic surgery is feasible and safe through a minimally invasive approach with acceptable incidence of complications and mortality, without compromising the efficacy of the procedure.

Current approaches to minimally invasive aortic valve surgery

Minimally invasive as it applies to aortic valve surgery refers to the exposure required to perform the aortic procedure, because total cardiopulmonary bypass is still required. Initial experience used the anterior thoracotomy, but recent series report the ministernotomy or "J" incision as the preferred technique for exposure. Though pain, blood loss, and length of stay may not be significantly different when compared with the conventional technique, lower costs and earlier recovery may be achieved. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery is a technique that is still evolving.