Hemisternotomy approach for aortic and mitral valve surgery

After exploring several less invasive approaches for cardiac valve surgery, we have concluded that the partial upper sternotomy is the incision of choice for minimally invasive aortic and mitral valve surgery. From March 1997 to January 1999, 827 patients had cardiac valve surgery using this approach; 462 had mitral valve procedures and 365 had aortic valve procedures. Of those having mitral valve surgery, 87% had mitral valve repair. Aortic valve surgery included replacement with stented bioprostheses (38%), allografts (29%), and mechanical prostheses (10%); in addition, 23% had aortic valve repair. Operative mortality was 0.8%. Conversion to full sternotomy was necessary in 2.4%. Blood use was low with 80% of patients receiving no blood transfusions. We conclude that all primary mitral and aortic procedures can be accomplished safely via partial upper sternotomy.     

Minimally invasive approach for redo mitral valve surgery: a true benefit for the patient

OBJECTIVES: Redo mitral valve surgery via sternotomy is associated with a substantial morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated a minimally invasive technique for mitral valve redo procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Out of a series of 394 patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement via a right minithoracotomy, 39 patients underwent redo mitral valve surgery (59+/-13 years, 23 female). Previous cardiac surgeries included 17 patients with mitral valve repair, 6 patients with mitral valve replacement, 3 patients with aortic valve replacement, 2 patients with atrial septal defect closure, and 11 patients with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In all cases, femoro-femoral cannulation was performed. The port access technique was applied in patients undergoing redo valve surgery. In patients with prior CABG, the operation was performed using deep hypothermia and ventricular fibrillation. RESULTS: In all cases, sternotomy was avoided. The mitral valve was replaced in 20 patients and repaired in 19. Time of surgery and cross-clamp time were comparable with the overall series (168+/-73 [redo] vs 168+/-58 min and 52+/-21 [redo] vs 58+/-25 min). Mortality was 5.1%. One patient had transient hemiplegia due to the migration of the endoclamp. All other patients had uneventful outcomes and normal mitral valve function at 3-month's follow-up. CONCLUSION: Redo mitral valve surgery can be performed safely using a minimally invasive approach in patients with a previous sternotomy. The right lateral minithoracotomy offers excellent exposure. It minimizes the need for cardiac dissection, and thus, the risk for injury. Avoiding a resternotomy increases patient comfort of redo mitral valve surgery.     

Minimally Invasive Approach for Redo Mitral Valve Surgery: A True Benefit for the Patient

ABSTRACT Objectives Redo mitral valve surgery via sternotomy is associated with a substantial morbidity and mortality. This study evaluated a minimally invasive technique for mitral valve redo procedures. Material and Methods: Out of a series of 394 patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement via a right minithoracotomy, 39 patients underwent redo mitral valve surgery (59 ± 13 years, 23 female). Previous cardiac surgeries included 17 patients with mitral valve repair, 6 patients with mitral valve replacement, 3 patients with aortic valve replacement, 2 patients with atrial septal defect closure, and 11 patients with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In all cases, femoro-femoral cannulation was performed. The port access technique was applied in patients undergoing redo valve surgery. In patients with prior CABG, the operation was performed using deep hypothermia and ventricular fibrillation. Results: In all cases, sternotomy was avoided. The mitral valve was replaced in 20 patients and repaired in 19. Time of surgery and cross-clamp time were comparable with the overall series (168 ± 73 [redo] vs 168 ± 58 min and 52 ± 21 [redo] vs 58 ± 25 min). Mortality was 5.1%. One patient had transient hemiplegia due to the migration of the endoclamp. All other patients had uneventful outcomes and normal mitral valve function at 3-month's follow-up. Conclusion: Redo mitral valve surgery can be performed safely using a minimally invasive approach in patients with a previous sternotomy. The right lateral minithoracotomy offers excellent exposure. It minimizes the need for cardiac dissection, and thus, the risk for injury. Avoiding a resternotomy increases patient comfort of redo mitral valve surgery.     

Minimally invasive technology for mitral valve surgery via left thoracotomy: experience with forty cases

BACKGROUND: Recent evolution of minimally invasive technology has expanded the application of the right thoracotomy approach for mitral valve surgery. These same technological advances have also made the left posterior minithoracotomy approach attractive in complex mitral procedures. METHODS: From 1996 to 2003, 921 isolated mitral valve procedures were performed without sternotomy; 40 (4.3%) of these were performed via left posterior minithoracotomy. In the left posterior minithoracotomy group, ages ranged from 18 to 84 years; 36 patients had had previous cardiac surgery (9 on > or =2 occasions). Other factors precluding right thoracotomy included mastectomy/radiation and pectus excavatum. RESULTS: Arterial perfusion was via femoral artery (n = 26) or descending aorta (n = 14); long femoral venous cannulas with vacuum-assisted drainage were used in 39 procedures. Two patients had direct aortic crossclamping, 18 had hypothermic fibrillation, and 20 had balloon endoaortic occlusion. The mean crossclamp and bypass times were 81.9 and 117.2 minutes, respectively. Hospital mortality was 5.0% (2/40); both deaths occurred in octogenarians. There were no injuries to bypass grafts or conversions to sternotomy. Complications included perioperative stroke (2/40; 5.0%), bleeding (2/40; 5.0%), and respiratory failure (1/40; 2.5%); 28 patients (70%) had no postoperative complications. There was no incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction, renal failure, sepsis, or wound infection. The median length of stay was 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in minimally invasive cardiac surgery technology are readily adaptable to a left-sided minithoracotomy approach to the mitral valve. The left posterior minithoracotomy approach is a valuable option in complicated reoperative mitral procedures with acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality.     

Robotic minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction yields less blood product transfusion and shorter length of stay

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction has gained popularity recently. Initial reports suggest that this approach can be used with relative safety and efficacy. Direct comparisons with a traditional sternotomy approach have not yet been explored extensively. METHODS: All mitral valve procedures that were performed by a single surgeon during a 3-year period of time were analyzed (n = 142 procedures). Patients whose condition required concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve surgery were excluded subsequently from analysis, because all of these patients were approached obligatorily by sternotomy (n = 71 patients). Six patients underwent right thoracotomy mitral valve procedures without robotic assistance, and 1 patient in cardiogenic shock underwent emergent mitral valve reconstruction by sternotomy. Of the remaining 64 patients who were eligible theoretically for sternotomy or robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery, 39 patients underwent sternotomy, and 25 patients underwent right chest minimally invasive robotic-assisted surgery. Randomization between these 2 approaches would be almost impossible in the United States. The primary determinant for the choice of approach was request of the referring physician or patient. Multiple perioperative outcomes were then compared. RESULTS: Patients who underwent sternotomy and robotic-assisted surgery exhibited equivalent preoperative characteristics and experienced an equivalent degree of correction of mitral regurgitation in repairs and in need for replacement. Complex mitral valve repairs that entailed leaflet resection and reapproximation, annular plication, sliding annuloplasty, chordal transfer, and GoreTex neochordal construction were accomplished successfully with the robotic system. Cross-clamp and bypass times were longer for patients in the minimally invasive group (110 vs 151 minutes; P = .0015; 162 vs 239 minutes; P < .001, respectively). Mean packed red blood cell transfusion was lower among patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery (5.0 vs 2.8 units; P = .04). Patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgeries experienced shorter mean duration of postoperative hospitalization (10.6 vs 7.1 days; P = .04). There was 1 death among the patients who underwent sternotomy, and no deaths among the patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients can undergo mitral valve reconstruction with minimally invasive robotic assistance, avoid a sternotomy, require less blood product transfusion, and experience shorter hospitalization.     

Minimally invasive approaches to aortic valve surgery: Brigham experience

Aortic valve surgery is a proven and effective therapy for severe aortic stenosis and insufficiency. Conventional aortic valve surgery is performed with a full sternotomy, cardiopulmonary bypass, and replacement of the diseased aortic valve. Unlike minimally invasive (or "off-pump") coronary artery bypass, minimally invasive aortic valve surgery still requires cardiopulmonary bypass but refers primarily to smaller incisions and access. Minimally invasive approaches to aortic valve surgery have evolved over the past decade and have become the standard in institutions that perform large-volume minimally invasive cardiac surgery. The upper hemisternotomy has become our standard approach to isolated aortic valve surgery. It is a safe and effective technique with a similar morbidity and mortality to conventional aortic valve surgery. Patients derive clear benefits from this minimally invasive approach including less pain, shorter length of hospital stay, and faster return to preoperative function levels.     

微创小切口心脏瓣膜手术134例

目的总结经微创小切口行心脏瓣膜手术的临床经验,探讨手术径路、方法、效果以及可能的危险因素。方法采用微创小切口行心脏瓣膜手术134例,其中经胸骨旁切口行主动脉瓣置换术5例,二尖瓣置换术2例;经右胸前外侧切口行二尖瓣手术46例,单纯三尖瓣手术15例;经胸骨上段小切口(反Z字形)行主动脉瓣置换术11例;经胸骨下段劈开加横断右半胸骨(倒L形)切口行二尖瓣手术55例。结果术后早期死亡3例,其中2例死于低心排血量综合征和右心功能不全,1例死于急性肝、肾功能衰竭。随访114例,随访时间2个月~7年,术后6个月患者的心功能均有不同程度的改善,切口疤痕隐蔽,复查心脏彩色超声心动图显示心瓣膜功能良好。结论微创小切口行心脏瓣膜手术可行,避免了完全劈开胸骨,维持胸廓的完整性,减少损伤,相对美观,有利于患者术后的恢复。     

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: mini-sternotomy with extended transseptal approach.

A partial upper sternotomy and an extended transseptal incision provide excellent exposure for mitral valve surgery. From March 1997 to December 1998, 462 patients had mitral valve surgeries using this minimally invasive approach. Eighty-seven percent had mitral valve repair, and 13% had mitral valve replacement. Thirteen patients (3%) required conversion to full sternotomy, and all other patients had the procedure completed using the initial approach. Forty-eight percent of patients were extubated within 6 hours of surgery, and 47% of patients spent less than 24 hours in the intensive care unit (ICU). Mean hospital length of stay was 7.2 +/- 5.4 days. Eighty-six percent of patients received no blood products. There was 1 hospital death (0.2%). Morbidity included reexploration for bleeding (4%), respiratory insufficiency (1%), stroke (1%), myocardial infarction (0.2%), and wound infection (0.2%). We conclude that virtually all mitral valve procedures, including complicated repairs, can be accomplished via partial upper sternotomy with an extended transseptal incision. This approach provides excellent exposure of the mitral valve and results in a low rate of wound complications, low transfusion requirements, and excellent cosmesis.     

Minimally invasive versus sternotomy approaches for mitral reconstruction: comparison of intermediate-term results

BACKGROUND: This study compares intermediate-term outcomes of mitral valve reconstruction after either the standard sternotomy approach or the new minimally invasive approach. Although minimally invasive mitral valve operations appear to offer certain advantages, such as reduced postoperative discomfort and decreased postoperative recovery time, the intermediate-term functional and echocardiographic efficacy has not yet been documented. METHODS: From May 1996 to February 1999, 100 consecutive patients underwent primary mitral reconstruction through a minimally invasive right anterior thoracotomy and peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass and Port-Access technology (Heartport, Inc, Redwood City, Calif). Outcomes were compared with those for our previous 100 patients undergoing primary mitral repair who were operated on with the standard sternotomy approach. RESULTS: Although patients were similar in age, the patients undergoing the minimally invasive approach had a lower preoperative New York Heart Association classification (2.1 +/- 0.5 vs 2.6 +/- 0.6, P <.001). There was one (1.0%) hospital mortality with the sternotomy approach and no such case with the minimally invasive approach. Follow-up revealed that residual mitral insufficiency was similar between the minimally invasive and sternotomy approaches (0.79 +/- 0.06 vs 0.77 +/- 0.06, P =.89, 0- to 3-point scale); likewise, the cumulative freedom from reoperation was not significantly different (94.4% vs 96.8%, P =.38). Follow-up New York Heart Association functional class was significantly better in the patients undergoing the minimally invasive approach (1.5 +/- 0.05 vs 1.2 +/- 0.05, P <.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate comparable 1-year follow-up results after minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction. Both echocardiographic results and New York Heart Association functional improvements were compatible with results achieved with the standard sternotomy approach. The minimally invasive approach for mitral valve reconstruction provides equally durable results with marked advantages for the patient and should be more widely adopted.     

Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares the quality of valve replacement and repair performed through minimally invasive incisions as compared to the standard operation for aortic and mitral valve replacement. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: With the advent of minimally invasive laparoscopic approaches to orthopedic surgery, urology, general surgery, and thoracic surgery, it now is apparent that standard cardiac valve operations can be performed through very small incisions with similar approaches. METHODS: Eighty-four patients underwent minimally invasive aortic (n = 41) and minimally invasive mitral valve repair and replacement (n = 43) between July 1996 and April 1997. Demographics, procedures, operative techniques, and postoperative morbidity and mortality were calculated, and a subset of the first 50 patients was compared to a 50-patient cohort who underwent the same operation through a conventional median sternotomy. Demographics, postoperative morbidity and mortality, patient satisfaction, and charges were compared. RESULTS: Of the 84 patients, there were 2 operative mortalities both in class IV aortic patients from multisystem organ failure. There was no operative mortality in the patients undergoing mitral valve replacement or repair. The operations were carried out with the same accuracy and attention to detail as with the conventional operation. There was minimal postoperative bleeding, cerebral vascular accidents, or other major morbidity. Groin cannulation complications primarily were related to atherosclerotic femoral arteries. A comparison of the minimally invasive to the conventional group, although operative time and ischemia time was higher in minimally invasive group, the requirement for erythrocytes was significantly less, patient satisfaction was significantly greater, and charges were approximately 20% less than those in the conventional group. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive aortic and mitral valve surgery in patients without coronary disease can be done safely and accurately through small incisions. Patient satisfaction is up, return to normality is higher, and requirement for postrehabilitation services is less. In addition, the charges are approximately 20% less. These results serve as a paradigm for the future in terms of valve surgery in the managed care environment.     

Routine minimally invasive aortic valve procedures

BACKGROUND: Due to the lack of objective evidence supporting the advantages and early technical difficulties, minimally invasive aortic valve procedures were performed on a highly selective rather than routine basis. METHODS: From September 1997 to February 1999, one surgeon routinely used upper or transverse minimally invasive sternotomy to perform 46 consecutive cases of aortic valve procedures (M), whereas two other surgeons performed 40 aortic valve procedures through a conventional sternotomy (C). RESULTS: More time consuming and technically demanding surgeries were done in M. There was one death in each group. Aortic clamp time was longer in M (93+/-40 vs 59+/-24 min, P=0.001). There were no differences in operating time, pump time, intubation duration, bleeding and intensive care unit stay. The advantages of minimally invasive aortic valve operation included better postoperative ejection fraction (58+/-17 vs 51+/-10%, P=0.04), decreased pain score (3+/-2 vs 5+/-2, P=0.004), less transfusion (19 vs 55%, P=0.02), shorter duration of chest tube drainage, and cosmetically more acceptable surgical wound (6.8+/-2.2 vs 5.2+/-2.0, P=0.018). From our series, we could not find any negative effects of minimal access surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that aortic valve surgeries could be performed routinely by the minimally invasive approach with a high degree of effectiveness and safety.     

One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the potential benefits of minimally invasive approaches for treatment of isolated aortic and mitral valve disease. METHODS: From 7/96 to 04/03, we performed 1000 minimally invasive valve operations: 526 aortic (AV) procedures (64 years; mean, 25-95) and 474 mitral (MV) procedures (58 years; mean, 17-90). RESULTS: In the AV group, an upper ministernotomy was used in 492/526 patients (93%) and a right parasternal approach in 34 (7%). Sixty-three patients had reoperative aortic valve replacements. In the MV group lower sternotomy was used in 260/474 (55%), right parasternal in 200/474 (42%), and a right thoracotomy in 14 patients. MV repair was performed in 416 and MV replacement in 58 patients. Operative mortality was 12/526 (2%) in the AV and 1/474 (0.2%) in the MV group. Freedom from reoperation at 6 years was 99% and 95% in the AV and MV group, respectively. Late mortality was 5% in the AV and 3% in the MV group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive valve surgery can be performed at very low levels of morbidity and mortality, with results equal to or better than conventional techniques. All forms of valve repair and replacement operations can be performed. Long-term survival and freedom from reoperation are excellent.     

Port-Access mitral valve surgery: summary of results

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to review the short-term results of an initial experience with minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery using the Port-Access approach in terms of feasibility, safety, and reproducibility. METHODS: Between October 1995 and October 1997, 151 minimally invasive cardiac valve procedures were performed at our institution using the Port-Access approach. The patients' mean age was 58.1 years (range 21 to 91 years) and 50% were male. Aortic valve replacement was performed in 35 (23.2%) patients, mitral valve repair in 56 (37.1%) patients, mitral valve replacement in 36 (23.8%) patients, and complex valve procedures in 24 (15.9%) patients. RESULTS: The operative mortality rate for isolated mitral valve surgery was 1.1% (1/92) and for all mitral valve surgery 3.5% (4/113). The operative mortality rate for isolated aortic valve patients was 5.7% (2/35). For the total group the operating mortality was 4% (6/151). Early complications for mitral valve patients included reoperation for bleeding or tamponade in 5 (4.4%) patients, myocardial infarction in 2 (1.2%) patients, and transient ischemic attack and wound infection in 1 (0.1%) patient each. One patient required reoperation for mitral valve failure that resulted in aortic dissection unrelated to the Endoaortic Clamp catheter and ultimately led to death. Two (5.6%) aortic valve patients required reoperation for bleeding and two (5.6%) required reoperation for tamponade. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive Port-Access techniques can be applied to most patients with valvular heart disease with minimal morbidity and mortality and good postoperative valve function and may be the preferred approach for isolated mitral and aortic valve surgery.     

Superior trans‐septal approach for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery via right small thoracotomy

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS), despite its challenges, is not a rare procedure. However, MIMVS via a right small thoracotomy must be performed using long‐shafted surgical instruments and thoracotomy instruments specialized for minimally invasive cardiac surgeries. We have performed 12 cases of MIMVS via right small thoracotomy using the superior trans‐septal approach and secured a surgical visual field that easily allows a finger to reach the mitral valve annulus without using special instruments for minimally invasive cardiac surgery. We named this technique the “drawer‐case technique.” In conclusion, MIMVS via right thoracotomy using the superior trans‐septal approach can be performed easily and safely, similar to mitral valve surgery performed via median sternotomy.     

Evolving techniques for mitral valve reconstruction

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness of new techniques of mitral valve reconstruction (MVR) that have evolved over the last decade, such as aggressive anterior leaflet repair and minimally invasive surgery using an endoaortic balloon occluder. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MVR via conventional sternotomy has been an established treatment for mitral insufficiency for over 20 years, primarily for the treatment of patients with posterior leaflet prolapse. METHODS: Between June 1980 and June 2001, 1,195 consecutive patients had MVR with ring annuloplasty. Conventional sternotomy was used in 843 patients, minimally invasive surgery in 352 (since June 1996). Anterior leaflet repair was performed in 374 patients, with increasing use over the last 10 years. Follow-up was 100% complete (mean 4.6 years, range 0.5-20.5). RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 4.7% overall and 1.4% for isolated MVR (1.1% for minimally invasive surgery vs. 1.6% for conventional sternotomy; =.4). Multivariate analysis showed the factors predictive of increased operative risk to be age, NYHA functional class, concomitant procedures, and previous cardiac surgery. The 5-year results for freedom from cardiac death, reoperation, and valve-related complications among the 782 patients with degenerative etiology are, respectively, as follows ( >.05 for all end points): for anterior leaflet repair, 93%, 94%, 90%; for no anterior leaflet repair, 91%, 92%, 91%; for minimally invasive surgery, 97%, 89%, 93%; and for conventional sternotomy, 93%, 94%, 90%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that late results of MVR after minimally invasive surgery and after anterior leaflet repair are equivalent to those achievable with conventional sternotomy and posterior leaflet repair. These options significantly expand the range of patients suitable for mitral valve repair surgery and give further evidence to support wider use of minimally invasive techniques.     

Evolution of mitral valve surgery: toward a totally endoscopic approach

BACKGROUND: Our study evaluates a series of video-assisted minimally invasive mitral operations, showing safe progression toward totally endoscopic techniques. METHODS: Consecutive patients with isolated mitral valve disease underwent either manually directed (n = 55) or voice-activated robotically directed (n = 72) video-assisted mitral operations. Cold blood cardioplegia, a transthoracic aortic clamp, a 5-mm endoscope, and a 5-cm minithoracotomy were used. This video-assisted minimally invasive mitral operation cohort was compared with a previous sternotomy-based mitral operation cohort (n = 100). RESULTS: Group demographics, New York Heart Association classification, and cardiac function were similar. Repairs were performed in 61.8% manually directed (n = 34), 75.0% robotically directed (n = 54), and 54% sternotomy-based (N = 54) mitral operations. The robotically directed technique showed a significant decrease in blood loss, ventilator time, and hospitalization compared with the sternotomy-based technique. Manually directed mitral operations compared with robotically directed mitral operations had decreased arrest times (128.0 +/- 4.5 minutes compared with 90.0 +/- 4.6 minutes; p < 0.001) and decreased perfusion times (173.0 +/- 5.7 minutes compared with 144.0 +/- 4.6 minutes; p < 0.001). In the minimally invasive mitral operation cohort, complications included reexploration for bleeding (2.4%; n = 3) and one stroke (0.8%), whereas the 30-day mortality was 2.3% (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Video-assisted mitral surgery provides safe and effective results when compared with conventional sternal approaches. These positive results show a safe and stepwise evolution toward a totally endoscopic mitral valve operation.     

The role of the minimally invasive beating heart technique in reoperative valve surgery

Abstract Objective: We reviewed our experience to assess potential advantages of minimally invasive surgery without aortic clamping over conventional median sternotomy and cardioplegic arrest during reoperative valve surgery. Methods: From August 2008 to August 2010, 22 reoperative valve procedures were performed through a minimally invasive approach without aortic cross‐clamping [no‐clamp group (NCG)]. Postoperative results were compared to a matched population in terms of sex, age, and type of surgery, and operated through median sternotomy with aortic cross‐clamping and cardioplegic arrest [clamp group (CG)]. Results: We performed 17 mitral valve replacements (MVRs), one mitral valve repair, one MVR associated to a tricuspid plasty (TVP), and three isolated TVP in both groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was 166 and 163 minutes in NCG and CG, respectively. Intra‐aortic balloon pump was necessary in two (NCG) and three (CG) patients. Two patients died in both groups from multiorgan failure. Biochemical analysis showed no significant differences in perioperative lactate or creatine kinase‐MB values. Conclusions: Redo valve surgery with an unclamped aorta is feasible, effective, and at least as safe as surgery using cardioplegic arrest. There was, however, no difference in biochemical or clinical outcomes from conventional surgery using aortic clamping and cardioplegic techniques. (J Card Surg 2012;27:24–28)     

Minimally invasive tricuspid operation using port access

BACKGROUND: Port-access techniques performed through a right mini-thoracotomy have been extensively described for both the mitral and aortic valves. However, reports of tricuspid valve operations using the port-access approach are rare. A technique for minimally invasive tricuspid valve operation using port access is described. METHODS: Port-access approach was applied to 33 consecutive patients undergoing tricuspid valve repair or replacement. RESULTS: Twelve percent (4 of 33) underwent tricuspid replacement and 88% underwent repair (28 of 33). Perioperative mortality was 6% (2 of 33) and conversion to median sternotomy was 3% (1 of 33). CONCLUSIONS: Port-access tricuspid operations are both feasible and safe with a low conversion rate to conventional median sternotomy.     

Mini-Reoperative Mitral Valve Surgery

BACKGROUND: Reoperative surgery involving the atrioventricular valves places the patient at risk for cardiac or bypass graft injury upon reoperative sternotomy. Standard right thoracotomy can avoid these problems but is associated with a large incision and possibly more pulmonary complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: An alternative, minimally invasive approach for reoperative atrioventricular valve surgery was studied in 22 patients. Patient age was 66 +/- 10 years. Postoperative mitral regurgitation was 3.4 +/- 0.3 and New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class was III/IV, despite a mean ejection fraction of 44 +/- 14%. These patients had 1-4 prior procedures a mean of 5 years previously. An anterior 5th interspace incision of 5- to 10-cm was performed. A 1-cm segment of 5th rib was removed to facilitate exposure. Cardiopulmonary bypass was performed via ascending aorta or femoral artery cannula and bicaval venous cannulae. Systemic cooling (25 degrees) and fibrillatory arrest was used. Operations performed included mitral valve repair (12), mitral valve replacement (5), prosthetic mitral valve rereplacement (4), repair of perivalvular leak (3), tricuspid valve repair (5), and atrial septal defect closures (7). Mean bypass time was 109 +/- 21 minutes with a mean fibrillatory time of 62 +/- 12 minutes. There was no intraoperative or 30-day mortality. Patients were weaned from ventilation at a mean of 5 hours postoperatively and received 1.3 +/- 1 unit of blood. There were no wound complications or re-explorations for bleeding. At a mean follow-up of 15 +/- 8 months, survivors are NYHA Class I-II. When interviewed, all patients felt their recovery was more rapid and less painful than their original sternotomy. CONCLUSION: This minimally invasive approach to reoperative atrioventricular valve surgery is safe and technically feasible. It has become our preferred approach to the atrioventricular valves in patients with a previous sternotomy.     

Development and clinical application of minimally invasive cardiac surgery using percutaneous cardiopulmonary support.

OBJECTIVES: Optimal cardiopulmonary support during minimally invasive cardiac surgery remains controversial. We developed cardiopulmonary bypass for minimally invasive cardiac surgery using percutaneous peripheral cannulation. METHODS: Subjects were 34 patients (age: 58 +/- 13 years; range: 17-73) undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery using percutaneous cardiopulmonary support between June 1997 and March 1999. Procedures included atrial septal defect closure (n = 14), partial atrioventricular septal defect closure (n = 1), mitral valve replacement (n = 8), mitral valve repair (n = 3), aortic valve replacement (n = 6), coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 1), and right atrial myxoma extirpation (n = 1). Bicaval venous drainage from the right internal jugular vein and the femoral vein and arterial return to the femoral artery were instituted by percutaneous cannulation. Venous drainage was implemented by negative pressure (-20 to -40 mmHg) and arterial return was by conventional roller pump. All procedures were conducted through a skin incision 8 +/- 1 cm, from 6 to 10 cm and partial sternotomy. Aortic cross clamping and cardioplegic solution were administered in the surgical field. RESULTS: The operation lasted 224 +/- 45 min., cardiopulmonary bypass 104 +/- 32 min., and aortic clamping 77 +/- 23 min.. No deaths occurred. One patient with residual atrial septal defect required reoperation through the same skin incision. Only 1 patient required homologous blood transfusion. The average postoperative hospital stay was 15 +/- 5 days. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery using percutaneous cardiopulmonary support is safe and an excellent option for selected patients affected by single valve lesion, simple cardiac anomalies, and coronary artery bypass grafting.