Minimally Invasive Versus Sternotomy Approach for Mitral Valve Surgery in Patients Greater Than 70 Years Old: A Propensity-Matched Comparison

ArticleinThe Annals of thoracic surgery 91(2):401-5 · February 2011with6 Reads
Impact Factor: 3.85 · DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.08.006 · Source: PubMed

    Abstract

    The goal of this study was to compare the outcome after mitral valve surgery through either standard sternotomy or right lateral minithoracotomy in elderly patients with higher perioperative risk.
    All 1,027 elderly patients (>70 years) who received isolated mitral valve surgery (± tricuspid valve repair) between August 1999 and July 2009 were analyzed for outcome differences due to surgical approach using propensity score matching. The etiology of mitral valve disease was degenerative (83%), endocarditis (6%), rheumatic (10%), and acute ischemic (<1%). Isolated stenosis was rare (3%); most patients had mitral valve regurgitation (72%) or combined mitral valve disease (25%).
    The minimally invasive approach led to longer duration of surgery (186 ± 61 vs 169 ± 59 minutes, p = 0.01), cardiopulmonary bypass time (142 ± 54 vs 102 ± 45 minutes, p = 0.0001), and cross-clamp time (74 ± 44 vs 64 ± 28 minutes, p = 0.015). There were no differences between the matched groups in 30-day mortality (7.7% vs 6.3%, p = 0.82), combined major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (11.2% vs 12.6%, p = 0.86), or other postoperative outcome. Only the number of postoperative arrhythmias and pacemaker implants was higher in the sternotomy group (65.7% vs 50.3%, p = 0.023 and 18.9% vs 10.5%, p = 0.059). Long-term survival was 66% ± 5.6% vs 56 ± 5.5% at 5 years and 35% ± 12% vs 40% ± 7.9% at 8 years, and did not show significant differences.
    Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through a right lateral minithoracotomy is at least as good and safe as the standard sternotomy approach in elderly patients.