Minimally invasive mitral valve repair or replacement for degenerative mitral regurgitation

Outcome of mitral valve repair or replacement for non-ischemic mitral regurgitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a rather common valvular heart disease. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes, and complications of mitral valve (MV) replacement with surgical MV repair of non-ischemic MR (NIMR)

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until October, 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included patients with MR and reported early (30-day or in-hospital) or late all-cause mortality. For each study, data on all-cause mortality and incidence of reoperation and operative complications in both groups were used to generate odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018089608.

Results

The literature search yielded 4834 studies, of which 20 studies, including a total of 21,898 patients with NIMR, were included. The pooled analysis showed that lower age, less female inclusion and incident of hypertension, significantly higher rates of diabetes and atrial fibrillation in the MV replacement group than MV repair group. No significant differences in the rates of pre-operative left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure were observed between groups. The number of patients in the MV repair group was lower than in the MV replacement group. We found that there were significantly increased risks of mortality associated with replacement of MR. Moreover, the rate of re-operation and post-operative MR in the MV repair group was lower than in the MV replacement group.

Conclusions

In patients with NIMR, MV repair achieves higher survival and leads to fewer complications than surgical MV replacement. In light of these results, we suggest that MV repair surgery should be a priority for NIMR patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-021-01563-2.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Transthoracic Cannulation into the Ascending Aorta Versus Femoral Artery Cannulation in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery

Objective

To delineate the efficacy and safety of transthoracic cannulation to the ascending aorta through a right pleural cavity during minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS).

Methods

We retrospectively assessed the records of 104 patients who underwent MICS in our institution between December 2011 and December 2018. Procedures included mitral valve repair (88 patients), aortic valve replacement (8 patients), atrial septal defect closure (6 patients), and myxoma resection (2 patients). Aortic valve replacements were performed through the third intercostal space (ICS), whereas the other procedures were mainly performed through the fourth ICS. The femoral group comprised 60 patients in whom an artificial graft was anastomosed to the femoral artery and 4 who underwent cannulation into the femoral artery. The aorta group comprised 40 patients in whom transthoracic cannulation was performed through the second or third ICS, separate from the main skin incision.

Results

No mortality or critical complications were associated with cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion pressure measured at outflow of the artificial lung (224 ± 43 vs. 190 ± 42; P < 0.001) and pump pressure measured at the outflow of the pump (293 ± 50 vs. 255 ± 57; P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the femoral group than in the aorta group. The skin incision lengths were similar (56.9 ± 6.9 vs. 55.1 ± 6.0 mm; P = 0.107).

Conclusions

Transthoracic cannulation into the ascending aorta is reliable and can be safely performed. The possible risks associated with peripheral cannulation and retrograde perfusion can be avoided thereafter.