A minimally invasive approach is more cost-effective than a traditional sternotomy approach for mitral valve surgery

Minimally Invasive Surgery: Standard of Care for Mitral Valve Endocarditis

Background. Minimally invasive surgery via right mini-thoracotomy has become the standard of care for the treatment of mitral valve disease worldwide, particularly at high-volume centers. In recent years, the spectrum of indications has progressively shifted and extended to fragile and higher-risk patients, also addressing more complex mitral valve disease and ultimately including patients with native or prosthetic infective endocarditis. The rationale for the adoption of the minimally invasive approach is to minimize surgical trauma, promote an earlier postoperative recovery, and reduce the incidence of surgical wound infection and other nosocomial infections. The aim of this retrospective observational study is to evaluate the effectiveness and the early and late outcome in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for mitral valve infective endocarditis. Methods. Prospectively collected data regarding minimally invasive surgery in patients with mitral valve infective endocarditis were entered into a dedicated database for the period between January 2007 and December 2022 and retrospectively analyzed. All comers during the study period underwent a preoperative evaluation based on their clinical history and anatomy for the allocation to the most appropriate surgical strategy. The selection of the mini-thoracotomy approach was primarily driven by a thorough transthoracic and especially transesophageal echocardiographic evaluation, coupled with total body and vascular imaging. Results. During the study period, 92 patients underwent right mini-thoracotomy to treat native (80/92, 87%) or prosthetic (12/92, 13%) mitral valve endocarditis at our institution, representing 5% of the patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral surgery. Twenty-six (28%) patients had undergone previous cardiac operations, whereas 18 (20%) presented preoperatively with complications related to endocarditis, most commonly systemic embolization. Sixty-nine and twenty-three patients, respectively, underwent early surgery (75%) or were operated on after the completion of the targeted antibiotic treatment (25%). A conservative procedure was feasible in 16/80 (20%) patients with native valve endocarditis. Conversion to standard sternotomy was necessary in a single case (1.1%). No cases of intraoperative iatrogenic aortic dissection were reported. Four patients died perioperatively, accounting for a thirty-day mortality of 4.4%. The causes of death were refractory heart or multiorgan failure and/or septic shock. A new onset stroke was observed postoperatively in one case (1.1%). Overall actuarial survival rate at 1 and 5 years after operation was 90.8% and 80.4%, whereas freedom from mitral valve reoperation at 1 and 5 years was 96.3% and 93.2%, respectively. Conclusions. This present study shows good early and long-term results in higher-risk patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for mitral valve infective endocarditis. Total body, vascular, and echocardiographic screening represent the key points to select the optimal approach and allow for the extension of indications for minimally invasive surgery to sicker patients, including active endocarditis and sepsis.

Quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a systematic review

Objective

Minimally invasive procedures have been developed to reduce surgical trauma after cardiac surgery. Clinical recovery is the main focus of most research. Still, patient-centred outcomes, such as the quality of life, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the surgery on the patient's life. This systematic review aims to deliver a detailed summary of all available research investigating the quality of recovery, assessed with quality of life instruments, in adults undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

Methods

All randomised trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies assessing the quality of recovery in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery compared to conventional cardiac surgery within the last 20 years were included, and a summary was prepared.

Results

The randomised trial observed an overall improved quality of life after both minimally invasive and conventional surgery. The quality of life improvement in the minimally invasive group showed a faster course and evolved to a higher level than the conventional surgery group. These findings align with the results of prospective cohort studies. In the cross-sectional studies, no significant difference in the quality of life was seen except for one that observed a significantly higher quality of life in the minimally invasive group.

Conclusions

This systematic review indicates that patients may benefit from minimally invasive and conventional cardiac surgery, but patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery may recover sooner and to a greater extent. However, no firm conclusion could be drawn due to the limited available studies. Therefore, randomised controlled trials are needed.

Minithoracotomy vs Conventional Sternotomy for Mitral Valve Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The safety and effectiveness of mitral valve repair via thoracoscopically-guided minithoracotomy (minithoracotomy) compared with median sternotomy (sternotomy) in patients with degenerative mitral valve regurgitation is uncertain.

Objective

To compare the safety and effectiveness of minithoracotomy vs sternotomy mitral valve repair in a randomized trial.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A pragmatic, multicenter, superiority, randomized clinical trial in 10 tertiary care institutions in the UK. Participants were adults with degenerative mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve repair surgery.

Interventions

Participants were randomized 1:1 with concealed allocation to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2 physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the index surgery, assessed by an independent researcher masked to the intervention. Secondary outcomes included recurrent mitral regurgitation grade, physical activity, and quality of life. The prespecified safety outcomes included death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year.

Results

Between November 2016 and January 2021, 330 participants were randomized (mean age, 67 years, 100 female [30%]); 166 were allocated to minithoracotomy and 164 allocated to sternotomy, of whom 309 underwent surgery and 294 reported the primary outcome. At 12 weeks, the mean between-group difference in the change in the SF-36 physical function T score was 0.68 (95% CI, -1.89 to 3.26). Valve repair rates (≈ 96%) were similar in both groups. Echocardiography demonstrated mitral regurgitation severity as none or mild for 92% of participants at 1 year with no difference between groups. The composite safety outcome occurred in 5.4% (9 of 166) of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% (10 of 163) undergoing sternotomy at 1 year.

Conclusions and relevance

Minithoracotomy is not superior to sternotomy in recovery of physical function at 12 weeks. Minithoracotomy achieves high rates and quality of valve repair and has similar safety outcomes at 1 year to sternotomy. The results provide evidence to inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines.

Trial Registration

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13930454.

A review and meta-analysis of conventional sternotomy versus minimally invasive mitral valve surgery for degenerative mitral valve disease focused on the last decade of evidence

OBJECTIVES

Early meta-analyses comparing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) with conventional sternotomy (CS) have determined the safety of MIMVS. We performed this review and meta-analysis based on studies from 2014 onwards to examine the differences in outcomes between MIMVS and CS. Specifically, some outcomes of interest included renal failure, new onset atrial fibrillation, mortality, stroke, reoperation for bleeding, blood transfusion and pulmonary infection.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in six databases for studies comparing MIMVS with CS. Although the initial search identified 821 papers in total, nine studies were suitable for the final analysis. All studies included compared CS with MIMVS. The Mantel - Haenszel statistical method was chosen due the use of inverse variance and random effects. A meta-analysis was performed on the data.

RESULTS

MIMVS had significantly lower odds of renal failure (OR: 0.52; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.73, p < 0.001), new onset atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.78; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90, p < 0.001), reduced prolonged intubation (OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87, p = 0.01) and reduced mortality (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87, p < 0.01). MIMVS had shorter ICU stay (WMD: -0.42; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.24, p < 0.001) and shorter time to discharge (WMD: -2.79; 95% CI -3.86 to -1.71, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In the modern era, MIMVS for degenerative disease is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared to the CS.

Enhanced recovery after minimally invasive heart valve surgery: Early and midterm outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although the use of protocols for "enhanced recovery after surgery" (ERAS) have been associated with improved results in different surgical specialties, only a few data are available for ERAS in cardiac surgery. This study aimed to compare 30-day outcomes of patients undergoing ultra-fast-track minimally invasive valve surgery (UFT-MIVS) versus conventional MIVS (c-MIVS).

METHODS

The key features of UFT-MIVS approach involves: 1) less invasive valve surgery techniques, 2) normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass management, 3) UFT-anesthesia with table extubation, 4) immediate rehabilitation therapy and patient-family contact. Five-hundred and seventy-six consecutive patients who underwent aortic or mitral MIVS were analyzed (2016-2020). Treatment selection bias (UFT-MIVS vs. c-MIVS) was addressed by the use of propensity score (PS) matching. After PS-matching 2 well-balanced groups of 152 patients each were created.

RESULTS

In the matched cohort, the overall 30-day mortality and stroke rates were 0.3% and 0.7%, respectively, with no difference between groups. UFT-MIVS resulted in lower rates of respiratory insufficiency and agitation/delirium compared with c-MIVS. Patients receiving UFT-MIVS were associated with significantly shorter intensive care unit length of stay and hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that MIVS is associated with excellent results in terms of early mortality and major postoperative complications rates. The implementation of UFT-MIVS protocol showed to be safe and was associated with improved clinical outcomes in regard to respiratory insufficiency, delirium and lengths of stay.

Propensity-matched comparison of right mini-thoracotomy versus median sternotomy for isolated mitral valve repair

BACKGROUND

A right mini-thoracotomy (RT) versus median sternotomy (MS) approach for isolated mitral valve (MV) repair has been associated with less postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and faster functional recovery, but with consistently longer cross-clamp time and higher operative costs.

METHODS

We assessed the impact of a modified operative technique on outcomes in 158 RT versus 129 MS patients treated with myxomatous MV repair from 2016 through 2021. Propensity matching based upon the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score was used to compare 108 patients in each cohort.

RESULTS

Propensity-matched RT patients had reductions in total ventilation time (P=0.025), postoperative atrial fibrillation (P=0.019), and hospital length of stay (P<0.001). RT and MS patients had similar cross-clamp times (66.4±13.7 vs 64.8±16.0 minutes, P=0.414), with less overall leaflet resection (32.4% vs 57.4%, P<0.001) and fewer Gore-Tex NeoChords implanted per patient (1.7±0.7 vs 2.1±1.0, P=0.028) in the RT group. The two cohorts did not differ with respect to 30-day major surgical complications. No patient died and there was no difference between the two groups with respect to freedom from re-operation (98.2% vs 98.2%, P=0.800) at a mean follow-up of 21.4±18.5 months. Direct total hospital costs were lower for the RT group (P=0.018), with reductions in postoperative charges offsetting increased operating room costs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center study, the RT compared to the MS approach for myxomatous MV repair resulted in less postoperative morbidity and shorter hospital length of stay, with similar cross-clamp time, reduced total hospital costs, and comparable intermediate outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Approaches Are Safe for Concomitant Mitral and Tricuspid Valve Surgery

Objective:

The need for concomitant tricuspid surgery during mitral valve surgery is associated with higher operative risk. We hypothesized that concomitant tricuspid surgery through a minimally invasive thoracotomy (MICS) is associated with noninferior risk compared with a sternotomy.

Methods:

All patients undergoing mitral valve surgery at a single institution (2010 to 2020) were evaluated. After excluding endocarditis, emergent operations, and concomitant aortic valve or coronary artery bypass grafting procedures, patients were stratified by MICS versus sternotomy. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the risk-adjusted association between concomitant tricuspid valve procedure and Society of Thoracic Surgeons major morbidity or mortality. An interaction term evaluated the impact of approach on concomitant tricuspid surgery.

Results:

A total of 772 patients underwent mitral valve surgery, including 138 (17.9%) with concomitant tricuspid valve operation. Of the total cohort, 243 patients (31.5%) underwent the MICS approach. Concomitant tricuspid operation was performed in 104 sternotomy patients (19.7%) compared with 34 MICS patients (14.0%, P = 0.056). After risk adjustment, patients who underwent concomitant tricuspid valve surgery via sternotomy had nearly 2 times greater odds of morbidity and mortality relative to those undergoing isolated mitral surgery via sternotomy (adjOR = 1.86, P = 0.049), while patients who underwent concomitant tricuspid surgery via the MICS approach had no increased risk of the composite outcome (adjOR = 0.66, P = 0.543), relative to isolated mitral surgery via MICS approach.

Conclusions:

Concomitant tricuspid surgery at the time of mitral valve surgery carries additional risk in a broad patient population. A minimally invasive approach appears to be safe for selected patients requiring concomitant tricuspid valve surgery.

Effect of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery compared to sternotomy on short- and long-term outcomes: a retrospective multicentre interventional cohort study based on Netherlands Heart Registration

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has been performed increasingly for the past 2 decades; however, large comparative studies on short- and long-term outcomes have been lacking. This study aims to compare short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing MIMVS versus median sternotomy (MST) based on real-world data, extracted from the Netherlands Heart Registration.

METHODS

Patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, with or without tricuspid valve, atrial septal closure and/or rhythm surgery between 2013 and 2018 were included. Primary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality and long-term survival. Propensity score matching analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In total, 2501 patients were included, 1776 were operated through MST and 725 using an MIMVS approach. After propensity matching, no significant differences in baseline characteristics persisted. There were no between-group differences in 30-day mortality (1.1% vs 0.7%, P = 0.58), 1-year mortality (2.6% vs 2.1%, P = 0.60) or perioperative stroke rate (1.1% vs 0.6%, P = 0.25) between MST and MIMVS, respectively. An increased rate of postoperative arrhythmia was observed in the MST group (31.3% vs 22.4%, P < 0.001). A higher repair rate was found in the MST group (80.9% vs 76.3%, P = 0.04). No difference in 5-year survival was found between the matched groups (95.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.49). Freedom from mitral reintervention was 97.9% for MST and 96.8% in the MIMVS group (P = 0.01), without a difference in reintervention-free survival (P = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

The MIMVS approach is as safe as the sternotomy approach for the surgical treatment of mitral valve disease. However, it comes at a cost of a reduced repair rate and more reinterventions in the long term, in the real-world.

Minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for Mitral valve repair: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (UK Mini Mitral)

INTRODUCTION

Numbers of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) surgery for severe mitral regurgitation have grown and will continue to rise. MVr is routinely performed via median sternotomy; however, there is a move towards less invasive surgical approaches.There is debate within the clinical and National Health Service (NHS) commissioning community about widespread adoption of minimally invasive MVr surgery in the absence of robust research evidence; implementation requires investment in staff and infrastructure.The UK Mini Mitral trial will provide definitive evidence comparing patient, NHS and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing MVr surgery. It will establish the best surgical approach for MVr, setting a standard against which emerging percutaneous techniques can be measured. Findings will inform optimisation of cost-effective practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

UK Mini Mitral is a multicentre, expertise based randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive thoracoscopically guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for MVr. The trial is taking place in NHS cardiothoracic centres in the UK with established minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programmes. In each centre, consenting and eligible patients are randomised to receive surgery performed by consultant surgeons who meet protocol-defined surgical expertise criteria. Patients are followed for 1 year, and consent to longer term follow-up.Primary outcome is physical functioning 12 weeks following surgery, measured by change in Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical functioning scale. Early and 1 year echo data will be reported by a core laboratory. Estimates of key clinical and health economic outcomes will be reported up to 5 years.The primary economic outcome is cost effectiveness, measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained over 52 weeks following index surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

A favourable opinion was given by Wales REC 6 (16/WA/0156). Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer reviewed publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13930454.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery

There is considerable interest and demand in the application of minimally invasive techniques in cardiac surgery driven by multiple factors including patient cosmesis and satisfaction, reduction of surgical trauma and the development of specialized instrumentation that allows these procedures to be performed safely. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has been conducted for more than 25 years and has been shown to offer multiple benefits including better cosmetic results, enhanced post-operative recovery, improved patient satisfaction and most importantly, equivalent clinical outcomes with regards to quality and safety when compared to the standard sternotomy approach. MIMVS may be particularly beneficial in certain subgroups of patients, for example patients undergoing redo mitral valve surgery. In this article, we discuss patient selection criteria for MIMVS, the merits and drawbacks of MIMVS relative to conventional sternotomy approaches, and detail procedural aspects including anaesthetic management, intraoperative technique, and important considerations in myocardial protection and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). When considering developing a MIMVS programme, as for any new technique, a team approach to the introduction of the programme is essential. Although it is clear that patient selection is important, particularly early in a surgical programme, with experience complex repairs can be performed through a minimally invasive approach with excellent outcomes.

Right mini-thoracotomy approach for grown-up congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Right mini-thoracotomy cardiac surgery has been recognized as a safe and effective procedure, with remarkable early and long-terms outcomes. However, most of the literature is focused on mitral valve surgery and few studies report on the minimally invasive approach applied to congenital disease. Aim of this study was to review our experience on patients with grown-up congenital heart (GUCH) undergoing right mini-thoracotomy cardiac surgery.

METHODS

Data of patients with GUCH undergoing right mini-thoracotomy cardiac surgery from 2006 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria were atrial septal defect, partial anomalous pulmonary venous return, partial atrioventricular septal defect, and mitral or tricuspid valve dysfunction in congenital heart diseases.

RESULTS

During the study period 127 patients with GUCH underwent right mini-thoracotomy cardiac surgery. Mean age was 43.6 years and more than 60% were females; diagnosis was atrial septal defect in 57 cases (44.9%); 24 patients were redo (18.9%). No cases of stroke and major vascular complications were reported. Conversion to sternotomy was required in one case (0.8%). No residual shunts or valves dysfunction were recorded at the postoperative echocardiographic evaluation. Perioperative mortality was 1.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Right mini-thoracotomy cardiac surgery in selected patients with GUCH allows to avoid the big scar of the sternotomy approach and to accelerate the recovery in a young population. Moreover, in redo cases, it allows the surgeon to reach the heart and the aorta avoiding the well-known risks of a re-sternotomy procedure.

Cost Analysis of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery in the UK National Health Service

BACKGROUND

In the UK National Health Service, finite resources make the adoption of minimally invasive (MI) mitral valve surgery challenging unless greater operative costs (vs sternotomy [ST]) are balanced by postoperative savings. This study examined whether the cost analysis now became unfavorable.

METHODS

All patients (n = 380) undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery with or without a maze procedure over a 3-year period by either MI or ST approaches were included. Propensity matching (2 cohorts, 1:1 matched;, n = 75 per group) and multivariable regression were used to assess for the effect on cost. Cost data were prospectively collected from Service Line Reporting and reported in Sterling (£) as median (interquartile range [IQR]).

RESULTS

Matched data revealed that total hospital costs were equivalent (MI vs ST, £16,672 [IQR, £15,044, £20,611] vs £15,875 [IQR, £12,281, £20,687]; P .33). Three of 15 costing pools were significantly different: operative costs were higher for the MI group (MI vs ST, £7458 [IQR, £6738, £8286] vs £5596 iIQR, £4204, £6992]; P < .001), whereas ward costs (boarding, nursing) (MI vs ST, £1464 [IQR, £1146, £1864] vs £1733 [IQR, £1403, £2445] P = .006) and pharmacy services (MI vs ST, £187 [IQR, £140, £239] vs £244 [IQR, £179, £375] P < .001) were lower for the MI group. Hospital stay was shorter in the MI group (MI vs ST, 6 days [IQR, 5, 8 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6, 11 days]; P < .001). Multivariable regression produced similar findings.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in overall hospital cost between MI and ST mitral valve surgery: higher operative costs of MI surgery were offset by lower postoperative costs, with a 2-day shorter hospital stay.

Minimally invasive mitral valve repair

Minimally invasive mitral valve (MV) repair is being increasingly performed over the last 2 decades due to the constantly growing patient demand, since it offers a shorter recovery, less restriction and faster return to normal physical activities, reduction in pain, and superior cosmetic results. However, such procedures have to be performed through small incisions which limit visualization and the freedom of movement of the surgeon, in contrast to conventional operations that are performed through a sternotomy. Therefore, special long surgical instruments are required, and visualization is usually enhanced with advanced port-access two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) thoracoscopic cameras. This makes performance of a minimally invasive MV repair more challenging for the surgeon and is thereby associated with a steep learning curve. Nonetheless, the vast majority of patients who require MV repair are usually good candidates for this less invasive technique, though adequate patient selection is of utmost importance for success. Concomitant cardiac procedures such as ablation surgery for atrial fibrillation or right-sided interventions such as tricuspid valve surgery, heart tumor resection, and atrial septal defect closure can easily be performed using this approach. Short- and long-term results after minimally invasive MV repair are excellent and comparable with those achieved through a sternotomy approach. There are few drawbacks associated with minimally invasive MV repair such as the high technical demands of working through a constrained space and development of complications associated with peripheral cannulation and seldom unilateral pulmonary edema. Nonetheless, high-volume centers have been able to achieve similar operating times, postoperative complication rates, and mid-/long-term outcomes to those obtained through conventional sternotomy. Up-to-date evidence is needed in order to improve recommendations supporting minimally invasive MV repair. Future innovations should concentrate on decreasing complexity and improving reproducibility of minimally invasive procedures in low-volume centers.

Outcomes in minimally invasive double valve surgery

OBJECTIVE

To review current literature evidence on outcomes of minimally invasive double valve surgeries (MIS).

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was done from inception to 20th June 2020 identifying articles that discussed outcomes of minimally invasive approach in double valve surgeries either as a solo cohort or as comparative to conventional sternotomies. No limit was placed on time and place of publication and the evidence has been summarized in narrative manner within the manuscript.

RESULTS

Majority of current literature reported similar perioperative and clinical outcomes between MIS and conventional median sternotomy; except that MIS has better cosmetic effects and pain control. Nevertheless, minimal invasive techniques are associated with longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times which may have impact on the reported outcomes and overall morbidity and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive double valve surgery continues to develop, but scarcity in the literature suggests uptake is slow, possibly due to the learning curve associated with MIS. Many outcomes appear to be comparable to conventional sternotomy. There is need for larger, multi-center, and randomized trial to fully evaluate and establish the early, mid- and long-term morbidity and mortality rates associated with both techniques.

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive and median sternotomy for double and triple valve surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Limited data exists demonstrating the efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to median sternotomy (MS) for multiple valvular disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare operative and peri-operative outcomes of MIS vs MS in MVD.

METHODS

PubMed, Ovid, and Embase were searched from inception until August 2019 for randomized and observational studies comparing MIS and MS in patients with MVD. Clinical outcomes of intra- and postoperative times, reoperation for bleeding and surgical site infection were evaluated.

RESULTS

Five observational studies comparing 340 MIS vs 414 MS patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative review. The quality of evidence assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was good for all included studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased cardiopulmonary bypass time for MIS patients (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.365-0.608; P < .0001). Similarly, aortic cross-clamp time was longer in patients undergoing MIS (WMD, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.509-0.755; P < .0001). No differences were found in operative mortality, reoperation for bleeding, surgical site infection, or hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS for MVD have similar short-term outcomes compared to MS. This adds value to the use of minimally invasive methods for multivalvular surgery, despite conferring longer operative times. However, the paucity in literature and learning curve associated with MIS warrants further evidence, ideally randomized control trials, to support these findings.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with a low rate of complications

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is generally performed through a right minithoracotomy, in contrast to the traditional full median sternotomy approach. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is performed with increasing frequency, and by reducing surgical trauma, several observational studies suggest potential benefits with decreased bleeding and postoperative pain, reduced incidence of sternal wound infections, reduced length of hospital stay and shortened recovery period after surgery. In this review, we present an overview of mitral valve surgery, summarize the available evidence regarding the minimally invasive approach and report our experiences from introducing a minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programme at the Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, Sweden.

Value-Based Care: A Review of Key Challenges and Opportunities Relevant to Medical Technology Innovators

Developed countries struggle with high healthcare spending, and cost is often cited as a barrier to the introduction of new patient care technologies. The core objective of this review article is to help familiarize medical technology innovators with trends in the health economic environment and the implications for the adoption of new technologies. We review and discuss this topic in language accessible to medical technology innovators. We assess macrolevel developments in healthcare spending and highlight measures already taken to control spending. We discuss practical implications for anyone involved in healthcare innovation. Two observations are central to this discussion: (1) the U.S. spends significantly more on healthcare per capita than any other developed country; (2) across developed countries, healthcare spending has risen steadily over the past two decades. Nevertheless, higher spending has not always led to improvements in health. As a result, innovators need to be prepared to navigate an outcomes-oriented and value-based environment that is being defined by the emerging requirements of various healthcare stakeholders. Practically, new products should aim to improve health outcomes at a cost deemed “good value” and/or reduce cost for one or multiple stakeholders. Opportunities also exist for tools that enable cost/outcomes tracking, which will help demonstrate value to providers, insurers, and patients.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with excellent resource utilization, cost, and outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVR) has numerous associated benefits. However, many studies fail to include greater-risk patients. We hypothesized that a minimally invasive approach in a representative cohort provides excellent outcomes with reduced resource utilization.

METHODS

Mitral valve surgical records from 2011 to 2016 were paired with institutional financial records. Patients were stratified by approach and propensity-score matched to balance preoperative difference. The primary outcomes of interest were resource utilization including cost, discharge to a facility, and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 478 patients underwent mitral surgery (21% mini-MVR) and were balanced after matching (n = 74 per group), with 18% of patients having nondegenerative mitral disease. Outcomes were excellent with similar rates of major morbidity (9.5% mini-MVR vs 10.8% conventional, P = .78). Mini-MVR cases had lower rates of transfusion (11% vs 27%, P = .01) and shorter ventilator times (3.7 vs 6.0 hours, P < .0001). Mean total hospital cost was equivalent ($49,703 vs $54,970, P = .235) with mini-MVR having lower ancillary ($1645 vs $2652, P = .001) and blood costs ($383 vs $1058, P = .001). These savings were offset by longer surgical times (291 vs 234 minutes, P < .0001) with greater surgical ($7645 vs $7293, P = .0001) and implant costs ($1148 vs $748, P = .03). Rates of discharge to a facility (9.6% vs 16.2%) and readmission (9.6% vs 4.1%) were not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world cohort, mini-MVR continues to demonstrate excellent results with a favorable resource utilization profile. Greater surgical and implant costs with mini-MVR are offset by decreased transfusions and ancillary needs leading to equivalent overall hospital cost.

Is minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgery the new benchmark for treating mitral valve disease?

The treatment of mitral valve disease remains dynamic; surgeons and patients must now choose between many different surgical options when addressing mitral regurgitation and mitral stenosis. Notably, advances in imaging and surgical instrumentation allow surgeons to perform less invasive mitral valve surgery that spares the sternum. With favorable long-term data now emerging, we compare the benefits and risks of thoracoscopic mitral valve surgery with that through conventional sternotomy or surgery that is robot-assisted.

Myocardial Protection and Financial Considerations of Custodiol Cardioplegia in Minimally Invasive and Open Valve Surgery

Objective

Single-dose antegrade crystalloid cardioplegia with Custodiol-HTK (histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate) has been used for many years. Its safety and efficacy were established in experimental and clinical studies. It is beneficial in complex valve surgery because it provides a long period of myocardial protection with a single dose. Thus, valve procedures (minimally invasive or open) can be performed with limited interruption. The aim of this study is to compare the use of Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia with traditional blood cardioplegia in patients undergoing minimally invasive and open valve surgery.

Methods

A single-institution, retrospective case-control review was performed on patients who underwent valve surgery in Lee Memorial Health System at either HealthPark Medical Center or Gulf Coast Medical Center from July 1, 2011, through March 7, 2015. A total of 181 valve cases (aortic or mitral) performed using Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia were compared with 181 cases performed with traditional blood cardioplegia. Each group had an equal distribution of minimally invasive and open valve cases. Right chest thoracotomy or partial sternotomy was performed on minimally invasive valve cases. Demographics, perioperative data, clinical outcomes, and financial data were collected and analyzed.

Results

Patient outcomes were superior in the Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia group for blood transfusion, stroke, and hospital readmission within 30 days (P < 0.05). No statistical differences were observed in the other outcomes categories. Hospital charges were reduced on average by $3013 per patient when using Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia.

Conclusions

Use of Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia is safe and cost-effective when compared with traditional repetitive blood cardioplegia in patients undergoing minimally invasive and open valve surgery.

Percutaneous and minimally invasive approaches to mitral valve repair for severe mitral regurgitation-new devices and emerging outcomes

Mitral valve disease is common in the United States and around the world, and if left untreated, increases cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Mitral valve repair is technically more demanding than mitral valve replacement. Mitral valve repair should be considered the first line of treatment for mitral regurgitation in younger patients, mitral valve prolapse, annular dilatation, and with structural damage to the valve. Several minimally invasive percutaneous treatment options for mitral valve repair are available that are not restricted to conventional surgical approaches, and may be better received by patients. A useful classification system of these approaches proposed by Chiam and Ruiz is based on anatomic targets and device action upon the leaflets, annulus, chordae, and left ventricle. Future directions of minimally invasive techniques will include improving the safety profile through patient selection and risk stratification, improvement of current imaging and techniques, and multidisciplinary education.

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery Provides Excellent Outcomes Without Increased Cost: A Multi-Institutional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVR) has grown in popularity. Although single centers have reported excellent outcomes, data on real-world outcomes and costs of mini-MVR are limited. Moreover, mini-MVR has been criticized as adding additional cost without clear benefit. We hypothesized that mini-MVR provides superior outcomes with incremental increased costs in a multi-institutional cohort.

METHODS

Records for patients undergoing mitral valve surgical procedures with or without atrial ablation from 2011 to 2014 were extracted from a multi-institutional, regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and stratified according to right chest approach/minimally invasive or conventional sternotomy. Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or other concomitant procedures were excluded. Patients undergoing isolated mitral surgical procedure were propensity matched according to factors, including age, comorbidities, and preoperative laboratory values; clinical outcomes and cost differences were assessed by approach.

RESULTS

A total of 1,304 patients underwent mitral operations, including 425 (32.6%) by minimally invasive approach. In the propensity-matched analysis (n = 355 per group), patients undergoing mini-MVR had similar rates of mortality, stroke, and other complications compared with conventional MVR. Meanwhile, patients with mini-MVR experienced shorter intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay and fewer transfusions. Importantly, total hospital costs were no different between the two matched groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional sternotomy, mini-MVR in the "real world" demonstrated no differences in rates of major morbidity, but it was associated with shorter length of stay and fewer transfusions. Contrary to our hypothesis, mini-MVR can be performed with similar total hospital costs as conventional sternotomy. In summary, minimally invasive mitral surgical procedure in select patients can provide superior outcomes without increased cost.

Vaccines for Staphylococcus aureus and Target Populations

Staphylococcus aureus is a leading pathogen in surgical site, intensive care unit, and skin infections, as well as healthcare-associated pneumonias. These infections are associated with an enormous burden of morbidity, mortality, and increase of hospital length of stay and patient cost. S. aureus is impressively fast in acquiring antibiotic resistance, and multidrug-resistant strains are a serious threat to human health. Due to resistance or insufficient effectiveness, antibiotics and bundle measures leave a tremendous unmet medical need worldwide. There are no licensed vaccines on the market despite the significant efforts done by public and private initiatives. Indeed, vaccines tested in clinical trials in the last two decades have failed to show efficacy. However, they targeted single antigens and contained no adjuvants and efficacy trials were performed in severely ill subjects. Herein, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of potential target populations for efficacy trials taking into account key factors such as population size, incidence of S. aureus infection, disease outcome, primary endpoints, as well as practical advantages and disadvantages. We describe the whole-blood assay as a potential surrogate of protection, and we show the link between phase III clinical trial data of failed vaccines with their preclinical observations. Finally, we give our perspective on how new vaccine formulations and clinical development approaches may lead to successful S. aureus vaccines.

Minimally invasive left ventricular assist device placement

BACKGROUND

The use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as bridge-to-transplant and destination therapy has increased significantly in the recent years along with the rapidly increasing heart failure patient population worldwide. It is crucial to be familiar with the standard surgical technique of LVAD implantation, but also to further advance the technique to optimize patient outcomes. Numerous studies have shown minimally invasive cardiac surgeries, including cardiac valves procedures can improve patient outcomes with decrease post-operative bleeding, reduced blood transfusion requirement, shorter hospital stay, faster recovery rate and lower hospital cost. With the advancement of mechanical circulatory support, the smaller and current generation of centrifugal continuous-flow LVADs has made minimally invasive LVAD implantation feasible. In this review, we described our surgical technique of minimally invasive LVAD placement.

METHODS

In addition to the standard pre-LVAD implantation evaluation, multiple studies, including chest radiography, chest computed tomography and echocardiography are further examined for patient selection and planning of the operation. Instead of a full standard sternotomy, a lateral mini-thoracotomy and hemi-sternotomy or second intercostal space anterior mini-thoracotomy are utilized. Special techniques are also applied to allow easy access for future re-entry, e.g., heart transplantation and to improve post-operative outcomes. Off-pump approach is our prefer approach for the minimally invasive procedure.

RESULTS

With minimally invasive approach, avoiding a full sternotomy, can reduce surgical trauma and post-operative bleeding, and can make subsequent LVAD explantation and heart transplantation less technically challenging and will allow patients to have a faster post-operative recovery rate. With the intact pericardium, the right ventricle can be protected from acute unrestricted dilation and further right heart failure after LVAD placement. The use of off-pump approach allows the avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass and will decrease the incidence of post-operative vasoplegia and coagulopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

With the current generation of LVADs, minimally invasive surgical approach is very feasible and may improve patient outcomes. Further large prospective randomized studies will help to further demonstrate the potential advantages and disadvantage of minimally invasive LVAD placement. The upcoming generations of LVADs and minimally invasive instrumentations are currently being evaluate and will further advance the success of LVAD therapy.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay when compared with traditional sternotomy

OBJECTIVE

Mitral valve surgery is increasingly performed through minimally invasive approaches. There are limited data regarding the cost of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. Moreover, there are no data on the specific costs associated with mitral valve surgery. We undertook this study to compare the costs (total and subcomponent) of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery relative to traditional sternotomy.

METHODS

All isolated mitral valve repairs performed in our health system from March 2012 through September 2013 were analyzed. To ensure like sets of patients, only those patients who underwent isolated mitral valve repairs with preoperative Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores of less than 4 were included in this study. A total of 159 patients were identified (sternotomy, 68; mini, 91). Total incurred direct cost was obtained from hospital financial records.

RESULTS

Analysis demonstrated no difference in total cost (operative and postoperative) of mitral valve repair between mini and sternotomy ($25,515 ± $7598 vs $26,049 ± $11,737; P = .74). Operative costs were higher for the mini cohort, whereas postoperative costs were significantly lower. Postoperative intensive care unit and total hospital stays were both significantly shorter for the mini cohort. There were no differences in postoperative complications or survival between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery can be performed with overall equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay relative to traditional sternotomy. There is greater operative cost associated with minimally invasive mitral valve surgery that is offset by shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays.

From the ground up: building a minimally invasive aortic valve surgery program

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is associated with numerous advantages including improved patient satisfaction, cosmesis, decreased transfusion requirements, and cost-effectiveness. Despite these advantages, little information exists on how to build a MIAVR program from the ground up. The steps to build a MIAVR program include compiling a multi-disciplinary team composed of surgeons, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, perfusionists, operating room (OR) technicians, and nurses. Once assembled, this team can then approach hospital administrators to present a cost-benefit analysis of MIAVR, emphasizing the importance of reduced resource utilization in the long-term to offset the initial financial investment that will be required. With hospital approval, training can commence to provide surgeons and other staff with the necessary knowledge and skills in MIAVR procedures and outcomes. Marketing and advertising of the program through the use of social media, educational conferences, grand rounds, and printed media will attract the initial patients. A dedicated website for the program can function as a "virtual lobby" for patients wanting to learn more. Initially, conservative selection criteria of cases that qualify for MIAVR will set the program up for success by avoiding complex co-morbidities and surgical techniques. During the learning curve phase of the program, patient safety should be a priority.

State of the art of robotic thymectomy

BACKGROUND

Thymectomy is a widely accepted treatment for most cases of myasthenia gravis and essential for the treatment of thymoma. The development of a minimally invasive procedure for thymectomy resulted in a variety of approaches for surgery on the thymic gland. The use of thoracoscopy-based techniques has continued to increase, including the latest advance in this field, robotic thymectomy.

METHODS

We review the rapid development and actual use of this approach by examining published reports, worldwide registries, and personal communications and by analyzing our database, which is the largest single-center experience and contains 317 thymectomies until 12/2012. The technical modifications of robotic thymectomy are also described.

RESULTS

Since 2001, approximately 3,500 robotic thymectomies have been registered worldwide. Meanwhile, the results of approximately 500 thymectomy cases have been published. Robotic thymectomy is performed most frequently through a standardized unilateral three-trocar approach. All reports describe promising and satisfactory results for myasthenia gravis. For early-stage thymoma, robotic thymectomy is a technically sound and safe procedure with a very low complication rate and short hospital stay. Oncological outcome without recurrences is promising, but a longer follow-up is needed.

CONCLUSION

The unilateral robotic technique can be considered an adequate approach for thymectomy, even with demanding anatomical configurations. Robotic thymectomy has spread worldwide over the last decade because of the promising results in myasthenia gravis and thymoma patients.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Robotic versus Nonrobotic Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery

Objective

To date, a direct comparison of minimally invasive mitral valve repair or replacement (mini-MVR) versus robotic MVR is lacking; therefore, the purpose of this study was to address this deficit and compare mini-MVR with robotic MVR from a cost-benefit perspective.

Methods

From a total of 759 literature citations, 21 studies were included for statistical comparisons of benefit outcomes, whereas 3 studies and our institutional experience were used to compare costs.

Results

The total cost per case exceeding that of conventional MVR is approximately $2063.90 for robotic MVR and $271 for mini-MVR. Mean 30-day mortality rates for mini-MVR and robotic MVR groups were 1.24% and 0.55%, respectively [106/8548 vs 6/1089; odds ratio (OR), 2.27; P = 0.052]. The conversion rate to conventional MVR was 0.77% in mini-MVR and 1.83% in robotic MVR (35/5092 vs 22/1046; OR, 0.32; P < 0.001). The rate of neurologic events was 1.32% in mini-MVR and 2.37% in robotic MVR (109/8257 vs 20/845; OR, 0.55; P = 0.02). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was seen in 11.42% of mini-MVR patients and in 19.67% of robotic MVR patients (371/3249 vs 203/1032; OR, 0.53, P < 0.001). Mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in mini-MVR (137.4 vs 130.4 minutes), whereas cross-clamp time was shorter (82.2 vs 96.7 minutes).

Conclusions

Our comparative analysis provides insights into the clinical benefits versus variable costs relationship related to mini-MVR and robotic MVR.

Open vs. Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: Surgical Technique, Indications and Results

Minimally invasive procedures are the standard approach in many centres but are still under debate in regards of inferiority compared to conventional mitral valve surgery through a median sternotomy. The aim of this review was to summarize the current literature comparing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIVS) and conventional mitral valve surgery. In this review of the current literature, we summarize our findings from a recent meta-analysis and add information from papers that were published afterwards. There were no differences between patients treated minimally invasive or through a conventional sternotomy approach in regards of perioperative stroke rate and mortality. Procedural time, cardio-pulmonary-bypass time and cross-clamp time were longer in the MIVS group. In contrast, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and length of in hospital stay were significantly reduced in this group. Need for blood transfusion was lower in the MIVS group. Other outcomes like i.e., the rate of rethoracotomies or renal failure didn't differ between the groups. Repair rates and long-term freedom from recurrence of mitral regurgitation and reoperation are similar. Newer publications underline these findings. The current literature shows that MIVS and conventional mitral valve surgery show a similar perioperative outcome. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is favourable with regards to ICU stay, in hospital stay as well as need for blood transfusion.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: Does it make a difference?

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has emerged as an alternative approach to conventional sternotomy to perform mitral valve repair and replacement with equivalent results. This strategy was developed to decrease surgical trauma by minimizing the size of incisions and permits excellent exposure of the mitral valve thereby avoiding conventional full sternotomy. The purpose of this review is to provide a critical, objective, balanced, and evidence-based analysis of the literature to understand advantages, potential scope, and the utility of these minimally invasive approaches to the mitral valve in modern cardiac care.