Minithoracotomy vs. Conventional Mitral Valve Surgery for Rheumatic Mitral Valve Stenosis: a Single-Center Analysis of 128 Patients

• Autor(a) principal: Chernov,Igor
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: Enginoev,Soslan, Koz’min,Dmitry, Magomedov,Gasan, Tarasov,Dmitry, Sá,Michel Pompeu B. O., Weymann,Alexander, Zhigalov,Konstantin
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-76382020000200185
• topic: Mitral Valve Stenosis; Mitral Valve-surgery; Mini-Thoracotomy; Coronary Artery Disease; Myocardial Ischemia; Prostheses and Implants; Hospitalization; Postoperative Complications

Abstract Objective: To compare the in-hospital outcomes of a right-sided anterolateral minithoracotomy with those of median sternotomy in patients who received a mitral valve replacement (MVR) because of rheumatic mitral valve stenosis (RMS). Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 128 patients (34% male) with RMS between 2011 and 2015. The median age was 53 years (45; 56). The mean ejection fraction was 58.4±6.3%. All the subjects were divided into two groups - Group 1 contained 78 patients who underwent MVR via minithoracotomy (MT-MVR), while Group 2 contained 50 patients who underwent MVR via median sternotomy (S-MVR). Results: In the MT-MVR group, a mechanical prosthesis was implanted in 72% of cases, while it was implanted in 90% of cases in the S-MVR group (P=0.01). The duration of myocardial ischemia was similar (MT-MVR, 77±24 min; S-MVR, 70±18 min) (P=0.09). However, the cardiopulmonary bypass time was lower in the S-MVR group than in the MT-MVR group (99±24 min and 119±34 min, respectively) (P≤0.001). There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and hospitalization period. Postoperative blood loss was lower in the MT-MVR group (P≤0.001) than in the S-MVR group. There are no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications (superficial wound infection, stroke, delirium, pericardial tamponade, pleural puncture, acute kidney insufficiency, and implantation of pacemaker). The overall in-hospital mortality was 3.9% (P=0.6) Conclusion: The minimally invasive approach for RMS is feasible and has an excellent cosmetic effect without increasing the risk of surgical complications.