Learning curve predictors for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery; how far should the rabbit hole go?

Risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to identify risk predictors that impact long-term prognosis in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis aortic valve implantation.

METHODS

From 2013 to 2020, 101 consecutive participants who underwent isolated AVR with the Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis were included. Primary endpoint was analysis of all-cause mortality. We performed a propensity-adjusted analysis of patients undergoing redo sutureless vs redo sutured AVR to understand the impact of sutureless valves in redo operations.

RESULTS

Pre-operative characteristics included a mean age of 71.2-years, mean EuroScore II of 3.51 (±4.48), mean body mass index of 30.2 (±6.8). Mean follow-up was 1.5 years. Intraoperatively, mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time were 65 ± 29.6 and 47.3 ± 21.3 min, respectively. Valve redeployment was necessary in 9.9 % of cases and there was one intraoperative death. There were two hospital deaths (including the operative death) while only one was cardiac related. Postoperatively, mean ejection fraction was 55.5 % (±4.1 %), mean effective orifice was 1.5 (±0.3) cm2, and mean transvalvular gradient was 14.7 (±4) mmHg. At 7-years follow-up, 87.9 % of patients were alive. Risk predictors for all-cause death were female sex and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) grade ≥ 2. After matching, aortic cross-clamp time, inotrope use, blood product transfusions, respiratory failure, and post-operative arrhythmias were higher in the redo sutured group compared to the sutureless redo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sutureless aortic valve implantations have good clinical outcomes. Risk predictors for all-cause death included female sex and LVDD grade ≥ 2.

Attaining competency and proficiency in minimally invasive mitral valve repair: a learning curve assessment using cumulative sum analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the learning curve of minimally invasive mitral valvuloplasty (MVP).

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive MVP is characterized by minimal trauma, minimal bleeding, and short postoperative recovery time. The learning curve of any new procedure needs to be evaluated for learning and replication. However, minimally invasive mitral valve technique is a wide-ranging concept, no further analysis of the outcomes and learning curve of minimally invasive Mitral valvuloplasty has been performed.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive MVP alone without concurrent surgery were evaluated. Using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and aortic clamping (AC) time as evaluation variables, we visualized the learning curve for minimally invasive MVP using cumulative sum analysis. We also analyzed important postoperative variables such as postoperative drainage, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

The slope of the fitted curve was negative after 75 procedures, and the learning curve could be crossed after the completion of the 75th procedure when AC and CPB time were used as evaluation variables. And as the number of surgical cases increased, CPB, AC, postoperative drainage, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay and postoperative hospital stay all showed different degrees of decrease. The incidence of postoperative adverse events is similar to conventional Mitral valvuloplasty.

CONCLUSION

Compared to conventional MVP, minimally invasive MVP provides the same satisfactory surgical results and stabilization can be achieved gradually after completion of the 75th procedure.

Pass On What You Have Learned: A Structured Mentor-Mentee Concept for the Implementation of a Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery Program

INTRODUCTION

Starting a minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) for mitral valve repair (MVR) program is challenging as it requires a new learning curve, but compromising surgical results at the same time is not acceptable. Here, we describe our surgical educational experience of starting a new MICS program at a university heart center in Germany.

METHODS

A dedicated team for the new MICS program including 2 cardiac surgeons, 1 cardiac anesthetist, 1 perfusionist, and 1 scrub nurse was chosen. The use of long shafted instruments was trained in a low-cost self-assembled MICS simulator, and the EACTS endoscopic dry lab course was visited. Thereafter, 1 MICS center was visited for direct observation and peer-to-peer education for 6 weeks. The mentor observed the first 10 cases performed by the mentee. The surgical mitral valve expertise of 1 single cardiac surgeon was retrospectively analyzed between April 2016 and April 2021.

RESULTS

Before the implementation of the MICS-MVR program, 18 mitral valve operations have been performed through sternotomy between April 2016 and October 2018 including 12 replacements and 6 ring annuloplasties. After starting the MICS-MVR program, 73 mitral operations have been performed by the same surgeon of which 53 video-assisted through minithoracotomy (72.6%). 83.1% of the MICS procedures included complex repair (n = 38) and ring annuloplasty (n = 6). Open heart MV surgery was necessary in 20 patients due to concomitant procedures (n = 8), redo procedures (n = 2), severe endocarditis (n = 4), or contraindication for MICS such as PAD (n = 6). There have been no deaths, 1 stroke, and 1 cardiac vascular (RCX) complication. Two patients required conversion to sternotomy and one pericardiocentesis in the long term.

CONCLUSION

Typically, excellent exposure and high repair rates of the MV has led us offer MICS approach to a majority of patients with isolated MV disease. Careful planning and a strict mentor-mentee concept facilitated a safe startup of an MICS program in a busy university heart center.