Imaging and monitoring in minimally invasive valve surgery using an intra-aortic occlusion device: a single center experience

Endoaortic balloon occlusion versus transthoracic cross-clamp for totally endoscopic robotic mitral valve surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Endoaortic balloon occlusion (EABO) and transthoracic cross-clamping have been shown to have comparable safety profiles for aortic occlusion in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS). However, few studies have focused exclusively on the totally endoscopic robotic approach. We sought to compare outcomes for patients undergoing totally endoscopic robotic mitral valve surgery with aortic occlusion via EABO and transthoracic clamping after a period where EABO was unavailable required us to use the transthoracic clamp. Retrospective review identified 113 patients who underwent robotic mitral valve surgery at our facility between 2019 and 2021 with EABO (n = 71) or transthoracic clamping (n = 42). Relevant data were extracted and compared. Preoperative characteristics were similar other than a higher rate of coronary artery disease [EABO: 69.0% (49/71) vs clamp: 45.2% (19/42), p = .02] and chronic lung disease [EABO: 38.0% (27/71) vs clamp: 9.5% (4/42), p < .01] in the EABO group. Median percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass time, operative time, and cross-clamp time were comparable. Similar rates of postoperative bleeding complications were observed, and no aortic complications were observed. One patient in each group underwent conversion to an open approach. 30-day mortality and readmission rates were comparable. EABO and transthoracic clamp were associated with similar bleeding and aortic outcomes, and mortality and readmission rates were comparable at thirty days postoperatively. Our findings support the comparable safety of the two techniques, which is well documented in studies encompassing all MIMVS techniques, within the specific context of the totally endoscopic robotic approach.

Cost and Clinical Outcomes Evaluation Between the Endoaortic Balloon and External Aortic Clamp in Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Endoaortic balloon occlusion facilitates cardioplegic arrest during minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Studies have shown endoclamping to be as safe as traditional aortic clamping. We compared outcomes and hospital costs of endoclamping versus external aortic occlusion in a large administrative database.

METHODS

There were 52,882 adults undergoing eligible cardiac surgery (October 2015 to March 2020) identified in the Premier Healthcare Database. Endoclamp procedures (n = 419) were 1:3 propensity score matched to similar procedures using external aortic occlusion (n = 1,244). Generalized linear modeling measured differences in in-hospital complications (major adverse renal and cardiac events, including mortality, new-onset atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury [AKI], myocardial infarction [MI], postcardiotomy syndrome, stroke/transient ischemic attack [TIA], and aortic dissection) and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

The mean age was 63 years, and 53% were male (n = 882). The majority (93%, n = 1,543) were mitral valve procedures, and 17% of procedures (n = 285) were robot-assisted. Total hospitalization costs were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups ($52,158 vs $49,839, P = 0.06). The median LOS was significantly shorter in the endoclamp group (incident rate ratio = 0.87, P < 0.001). Mortality, atrial fibrillation, AKI, and stroke/TIA were similar between the 2 groups. MI and postcardiotomy syndrome were lower in the endoclamp group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.14, P = 0.006, and OR = 0.27, P = 0.005). There were no aortic dissections in the endoclamp group.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic endoclamping in MIS was associated with similar costs, shorter LOS, no dissections, and comparably low mortality and stroke rates when compared with external clamping in this hospital billing dataset. These results demonstrate the clinical safety and efficacy of endoaortic balloon clamping in a real-world setting. Further studies are warranted.