PosterPDF Available

Flattening the Learning Curve of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Repair.

Authors:

Abstract

Purpose Since minimally invasive mitral valve repair (Mini-MVr) technique was introduced, it has become a routine approach to mitral valve disease. However, surgeons from low-volume centers might be reluctant to adopt this technique due to the initial learning curve involved. Methods Between 2004 and 2017, 200 patients underwent a mitral valve repair (MVr) for degenerative mitral valve disease at our institution. Fifty-eight (29%) patients underwent a Mini-MVr and 142 (71%) a conventional MVr. Previous to surgery, all patients were assessed by the institutional Mini-MVr team, which is lead by an experienced cardiac surgeon. Mini-MVr were performed by a right lateral minithoracotomy or periareolar approach while conventional repairs were performed through a conventional median sternotomy. Variables were described according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database guidelines. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics Results Follow-up was 94% complete, mean follow-up time was 2.3 years. There was no 30-day mortality. Five patients required mitral valve replacement after an average of 5.3 years. Patients from the Mini-MVr group were younger ( p=< 0,001) and healthier. Median left ventricular ejection fraction for the Mini-MVr group was 55% (46-60) and 60% (55-61) for conventional MVr group (p=0,013) (Table 1). At last follow-up, two patients died of cardiovascular disease related to mitral valve and 168 patients (89%) showed no or grade I mitral regurgitation (Table 1). We compared cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times of Mini-MVr with the standard times of conventional MVr at our institution. Results showed that in the first cases Mini-MVr times were higher than the conventional approach. Nevertheless, after the thirtieth case, CPB and cross-clamp times start lowering, and finally, after the fiftieth case, they became shorter than the conventional MVr times. (Figure 1). Conclusions This study suggests that Mini-MVr techniques are safe, effective, and provides excellent short and long-term outcomes. Low-volume centers can accomplish Mini-MVr results comparable to those reported worldwide. The creation of a Mini-MVr team, lead by an experienced surgeon can help flatten the learning curve.
TITULO
Flattening the Learning Curve of Minimally Invasive
Mitral Valve Repair.
Purpose
Since minimally invasive mitral valve repair (Mini-MVr) technique was introduced, it has become a routine approach to mitral
valve disease. However, surgeons from low-volume centers might be reluctant to adopt this technique due to the initial learning
curve involved.
.
Methods
Between 2004 and 2017, 200 patients underwent a mitral valve repair (MVr) for degenerative mitral valve disease at our
institution. Fifty-eight (29%) patients underwent a Mini-MVr and 142 (71%) a conventional MVr. Previous to surgery, all patients
were assessed by the institutional Mini-MVr team, which is lead by an experienced cardiac surgeon. Mini-MVr were performed
by a right lateral minithoracotomy or periareolar approach while conventional repairs were performed through a conventional
median sternotomy. Variables were described according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database guidelines. Baseline
demographics and clinical characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics.
Results
Follow-up was 94% complete, mean follow-up time was 2.3 years. There was no 30-day mortality. Five patients required mitral
valve replacement after an average of 5.3 years. Patients from the Mini-MVr group were younger ( p=< 0,001) and healthier.
Median left ventricular ejection fraction for the Mini-MVr group was 55% (46-60) and 60% (55-61) for conventional MVr group
(p=0,013) (Table 1). At last follow-up, two patients died of cardiovascular disease related to mitral valve and 168 patients (89%)
showed no or grade I mitral regurgitation (Table 1). We compared cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times of
Mini-MVr with the standard times of conventional MVr at our institution. Results showed that in the first cases Mini-MVr times
were higher than the conventional approach. Nevertheless, after the thirtieth case, CPB and cross-clamp times start lowering, and
finally, after the fiftieth case, they became shorter than the conventional MVr times. (Figure 1).
Conclusions
This study suggests that Mini-MVr techniques are safe, effective, and provides excellent short and long-term outcomes. Low-
volume centers can accomplish Mini-MVr results comparable to those reported worldwide. The creation of a Mini-MVr team,
lead by an experienced surgeon can help flatten the learning curve.
Giraldo-Grueso M1, Sandoval N2, Camacho J2, Pineda I3, Umaña J P2.
1 Vascular Function Research Laboratory, Fundación Cardioinfantil-Instituto de Cardiología
2 Cardiac Surgeon, Cardiac Surgery Department, Fundación Cardioinfantil-Instituto de Cardiología.
3 Epidemiology, Cardiac Surgery Department, Fudanción Cardioinfantil-Instituto de Cardiología.
Dr. Juan P Umaña is a consultant for Edward LifeScience
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.