Aklog L, Adams DH, Couper GS, et al. Techniques and results of direct-access minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a paradigm for the future

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (Impact Factor: 4.17). 12/1998; 116(5):705-15. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5223(98)00448-6
Source: PubMed


Our objective was to determine whether direct-access minimally invasive mitral valve surgery can improve recovery and cost while maintaining the efficacy of conventional surgery.
Minimally invasive mitral valve operations were performed on 106 patients, 58% male, average age 58.1 years, with good ventricular function. Ninety underwent repair of a regurgitant, myxomatous valve, and 16 underwent mitral valvuloplasty for prematurely calcified mitral stenosis. The valve was approached with standard instruments through a 5- to 8-cm right parasternal incision. Eighty-five had open femoral artery-femoral vein cannulation, but this technique has recently been replaced by direct cannulation of the aorta and percutaneous cannulation of the femoral vein for most patients.
There were no operative deaths. The mean mitral regurgitation score (0-4) decreased from 3.7 to 0.7 after the operation. Although ischemic and bypass times were increased, postoperative recovery was accelerated. Ventilatory support time, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, need for rehabilitation, and return to "normal activities" all improved. Hospital charges, pain medications, and blood transfusions were also reduced. New atrial fibrillation contributed significantly to increased length of stay and charges. There were no deep wound infections. Other complications included re-exploration for bleeding (n = 1), transient ischemic attacks (n = 2), stroke (n = 1), femoral artery injury (n = 5), pseudoaneurysm (n = 2), and antegrade dissection of the ascending aorta (n = 1). Two patients died and 1 required reoperation during a mean follow-up of 8.8 months.
Direct-access minimally invasive mitral valve surgery can accelerate recovery, decrease charges, and decrease pain, while maintaining overall surgical efficacy. It has become our standard approach for isolated primary mitral valve operations.

5 Reads
  • Source
    • "Autschbach et al. measured postoperative pain on a daily basis during the ®rst postoperative week using a visual scale and could not ®nd a difference between minimally invasive and conventionally operated patients as well [6]. However, others think that there is less pain after minimal access surgery, although objective data are not presented in these studies [1] [4] [10]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Access to aortic valve can be performed through small incisions. However, a considerable advantage of this approach has not been proven by randomized studies so far. We wanted to elucidate the opinion of patients when they are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive approach prior to operation. This prospective study was performed with 27 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. These patients were informed prior to operation by the same resident concerning objective data. A photograph was shown illustrating a patient with postoperative wound after a standard- and a mini-incision, respectively. After the interview the patient could decide between full and partial sternotomy. After the interview 21/27 (78%) patients preferred to have a full sternotomy (group F) and 6/27 (22%) patients (group P) decided to have a partial sternotomy. Comments of group F: surgeon should have best exposure (n=15); cosmetics aspects unimportant (n=14); operation time as short as possible (n=7). Group P: cosmetic aspects important (n=6). Significant differences between groups (group F vs. group P): age (years), 69.1+/-1.5 vs. 49.2+/-7.3 (P=0.024); operation time (min), 142+/-7 vs. 189+/-15 (P=0.002); CK (IU/l), 111+/-11 vs. 374+/-114 (P=0.0007); CKMB (IU/l), 17+/-2 vs. 45+/-17 (P=0.006); ICU-stay (days), 2.6+/-0.2 vs. 3.2+/-0.2 (P=0.044). Pericardial effusion requiring drainage was observed in two patients of group P. One patient of group P suffered myocardial infarction. When patients are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimal invasive aortic valve surgery only a smaller number decides to have a mini incision. The patients preferring short incisions are significantly younger since cosmetic aspects are more important. Longer duration of operation may be due to longer hemostasis based on limited exposure. Air bubbles due to inadequate de-airing might be responsible for higher CK and CK-MB levels in group P.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2000 · European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
  • Source
    • "This has the advantage of optimum exposure for a complex operation and ready access to the entire heart for (1) placement of a retrograde cardioplegia catheter, (2) manual decompression in the event of LV distention, (3) uniform distribution of topical hypothermia during aortic clamping, and (4) multiple options for venting and de-airing. With the recent development of minimally invasive techniques applicable to cardiac valve surgery, [Cosgrove 1996, Cohn 1997, Aklog 1998, Gundry 1998a, b] we began performing aortic root replacements through an upper hemi-sternotomy. We have generally reserved this approach for otherwise healthy patients who require elective isolated aortic root replacements. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We retrospectively analyzed our early results with minimally invasive aortic root replacement. Between August 1996 and April 1999, our center performed 137 aortic root replacements. Thirty-seven (27%) were accomplished through a 5 to 8 cm minimally invasive upper hemi-sternotomy incision. All minimally invasive operations were elective. The mean age for this cohort was 46 +/- 12 yrs. Thirty one (84%) of the patients were male and 3 (8%) were reoperations. The average preoperative NYHA classification was 2.4 +/- 0.6 and ejection fraction (EF) was 58% +/- 12%. Valve pathology was congenitally bicuspid in 19 (51%), endocarditis (SBE ) in 5 (14%), calcific degeneration in 4 (11%), annuloaortic ectasia in 3 (8%), rheumatic in 2 (5%) and other etiologies in 4 (11%). Nine patients (24%) had associated ascending aortic or arch aneurysms. The surgical techniques performed through mini-hemisternotomy consisted of 1) full root replacement in 31 (84%), 2) subcoronary replacement in 4 (11%), and 3) hemiroot in 2 (5%). Valve implants consisted of a homograft in 30 (81%), "Freestyle" bioprosthesis in 4 (11%) and a St Jude valved conduit in 3 (8%). Mean cardiopulmonary bypass duration was 193 +/- 47 min. and aortic cross-clamp duration was 157 +/- 40 min. Myocardial protection included systemic hypothermia in all (24 +/- 4 degrees C), antegrade cardioplegia (CP) in 35 (95%) with supplemental retrograde CP in 23 (62%). Three patients (8%) experienced postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCO). There was one operative death (3%). There was one (3%) reoperation for bleeding and 13 patients (35%) required blood transfusions. New onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 7 patients (19%) and there were 3 (8%) minor complications. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was 6.7 +/- 4.3 days and LOS was less than 7 days in 29 patients (78%). Minimally invasive aortic root replacement is feasible for a broad range of aortic valve pathology, can incorporate full root, hemiroot and subcoronary techniques, can be used for homografts and "Freestyle" valves as well as valved conduits, and can be accomplished with acceptable morbidity and mortality. However, the operation takes longer through the smaller incision and therefore requires more careful attention to myocardial protection.
    Preview · Article · Feb 1999 · The Heart Surgery Forum
  • Source

    Preview · Article · Jun 1999 · Circulation
Show more