Minimally invasive valve surgery

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgery has been the last area of clinical surgery to adopt and embrace minimally invasive surgical techniques. Since the onset of arterial embolectomy in 1965, arthroscopic knee surgery performed in 1975 and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1985, huge advances in videoscopic, thorascopic and small incision surgery has taken place in all specialties which now allow change in the traditional approaches to cardiac valve surgery. In 1996, the Brigham and Women's Hospital, along with other units, began minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery for patients who had isolated valve pathology without coronary disease. Our experience now totals 689 patients, including 353 minimally invasive mitral valve repair/replacements and 336 minimally invasive aortic valve replacements, including root replacement and reoperations. METHODS: This new operative approach involves smaller incisions, the mandatory use of transesophageal echocardiogram for the monitoring of operation quality and air removal, newer perfusion techniques and some modifications in the standard valve repair/replacement techniques. With this blending of TEE, better perfusion techniques and new exposure, the safety and quality of valve operations by these techniques have been excellent. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The operative mortality is equal to (AVR) or less than (MVP) conventional open sternotomy cases and there is a shorter length of stay in the ICU and post-ICU, leading to a lower cost than conventional procedures. There are also less blood transfusions, atrial fibrillation and posthospital rehabilitation requirements, and patients have indicated that there is a faster return to normality over the conventional operative approaches. This brief report summarizes our experience from July, 1996 to January 2001.     

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.     

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.     

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 cardiac surgery for aortic valve disease

Recent surgical advances leading to good operative results have contributed to the trend to useminimally invasive approaches, even in cardiac surgery. Smaller incisions are clearly more cosmetically acceptable to patients. When using a minimally invasive approach, it is most important to maintain surgical quality without jeopardizing patients. A good operative visual field leads to good surgical results. In the parasternal approach, we use a retractor to harvest an internal thoracic artery in coronary artery bypass surgery. Retracting the sternum upward allows for a good surgical view and permits the use of an arch cannula rather than femoral cannulation. When reoperating for aortic valve repair, the j-sternotomy approach requires less adhesiolysis compared with the traditional full sternotomy. No special technique is necessary to perform aortic valve surgery using the j-sternotomy approach. However, meticulous attention must be paid to avoiding left ventricular air embolisms to prevent postoperative stroke or neurocognitive deficits, especially when utilizing a minimally invasive approach. Transesophageal echo is useful not only for monitoring cardiac function but also for monitoring the persence of air in the left ventricle and atrium. This paper compare as the degree of invasion of minimally invasive cardiac surgery and the traditional full sternotomy. No differences were found in the occurrence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome between patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery and the traditional technique. Therefore it is concluded that minimally invasive surgery for patients with aortic valve disease may become the standard approach in the near future.     

Surgical management of minimally invasive aortic valve operations

Although there is still a role for conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement, minimally invasive techniques are increasing in popularity and may benefit the patient with shorter postoperative course, less morbidity, and decreased overall cost. Additionally, transcatheter procedures have recently shown promising results in high-risk patients. This article provides an overview of the development of minimally invasive aortic valve operations, including a brief history of minimally invasive approaches, surgical considerations during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, and the technical approach to performing a hemisternotomy with aortic valve replacement. In addition, the authors review transcatheter techniques, including aortic valve replacement via a sheath placed in the apex of the left ventricle or through a sheath placed in the femoral vessels. Finally, the exciting results of the PARTNER trial and the effect of these results on the future of aortic valve surgery are discussed.     

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.     

Aortic valve replacement in patients with previous cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND: Whether minimally diseased aortic valves should be replaced during other necessary cardiac operations remains controversial. Part of the decision-making process in that issue revolves around the risks of subsequent aortic valve replacement. This study evaluated the results of aortic valve replacement in patients following prior cardiac surgery. METHODS: From February, 1984 through December, 2001 first-time aortic valve replacement was performed in 132 consecutive patients who had previous cardiac surgery utilizing cardiopulmonary bypass. Of those patients 89 (67%) had aortic valve replacement at a mean of 8.3 years after prior coronary artery bypass grafting, and 43 (33%) had aortic valve replacement at a mean of 13.0 years after previous procedures other than myocardial revascularization. Hospital records of all patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Early complications included operative mortality in six (6.7%) of the patients with prior coronary grafting and no mortality in the group with other prior operations. Patients having prior coronary grafting had more nonfatal complications than those with other previous procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve replacement in patients following previous cardiac surgery can be accomplished with acceptable mortality and morbidity. Routine replacement of aortic valves that are minimally diseased during coronary artery bypass grafting may not be warranted.     

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.     

The micro-mitral operation comparing the Port-Access technique and the transthoracic clamp technique

BACKGROUND: Several minimally invasive approaches to the mitral valve have been described, including parasternal incision and right anterolateral thoracotomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since September 1996, 58 patients underwent minimally invasive mitral valve surgery at our institution through a right anterolateral minithoractomy. Two different techniques were used for institution of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic clamping: in the Port-Access group (group A) patients had femoro-femoral cannulation with a special arterial cannula to introduce an endoaortic balloon clamp (n = 23). The second group (group B) of patients underwent femoro-femoral CPB as well in combination with a specially designed transthoracic aortic clamp (Chitwood technique, n = 35). Patients were assigned to either technique in a nonrandomized fashion. Demographics were similar in both groups. RESULTS: In group A, 4 valves were replaced, 19 patients had mitral valve repair. In group B, 7 patients had valve replacement and 28 patients underwent mitral repair. Four patients in group A were converted to Chitwood technique due to endoclamp dysfunction. Operating time, CPB time, cross-clamp time, and postoperative blood loss were lower in group B (operating time 295 +/- 83 min vs. 236 +/- 63.9 min; CPB min 167.6 = 64.9 min vs. 137.6 +/- 38.2 min; cross-clamp time 105.9 +/- 51.7 min vs. 78.9 +/- 25.2 min; postoperative blood loss 584 +/- 428 mL vs. 323 +/- 209 mL [p < 0.05]). Clinical outcome regarding postoperative mechanical ventilatilation time, hospital stay and hospital mortality was not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive mitral valve procedures via right anterolateral minithoracotomy, including complex valve repair, can be performed successfully using either technique. However, the Chitwood technique provides better intraoperative handling with shorter operation time and less postoperative blood loss. Additionally, costs of a procedure are less using the Chitwood technique compared to the Port-Access technique.     

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through right anterolateral minithoracotomy.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the feasibility of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. The aim of the study was to minimize surgical access to achieve better cosmetic results, less postoperative discomfort, and faster recovery. METHODS: From September 1997 to October 1998, 76 patients underwent mitral valve surgery through a right anterolateral minithoracotomy at the fourth intercostal space. The mitral valve was either repaired (n = 21) or replaced (n = 55). In all cases, open femoral artery-femoral vein cannulation was used for cardiopulmonary bypass. In 27 cases, an endoluminal aortic clamp was used, but in 49 cases, the aorta was cross-clamped with a transthoracic, sliding-rod-design clamp. RESULTS: There were no approach-related limitations to surgical intervention. Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography revealed excellent results after valve repair and no paravalvular leak in any patient after mitral valve replacement. Mean duration of intensive care and postoperative hospital stay was 32+/-5.2 hours and 7+/-1.1 days, respectively. There were no major complications related to femoral vessel cannulation. In 1 patient, transient neurological problems developed, with subsequent complete recovery. There was one hospital mortality (85-year-old male patient died of upper GI bleeding). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive port access mitral valve surgery can accelerate recovery and decrease pain, while maintaining overall surgical efficacy. It also provides better cosmetic results to our patients, and now it has become our standard approach for isolated mitral valve surgery.     

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a 6-year experience with 714 patients

BACKGROUND: This study analyzes a single institutional experience with minimally invasive mitral valve operations of 6 years, reviewing short-term morbidity and mortality and long-term echocardiographic follow-up data. METHODS: Seven hundred fourteen consecutive patients had minimally invasive mitral valve procedures between November 1995 and November 2001; concomitant procedures included 91 multiple valves and 18 coronary artery bypass grafts. Of these 714 patients, 561 patients had isolated mitral valve operations (375 repairs, 186 replacements). Mean age was 58.3 years (range, 14 to 96 years; 30.1% > 70 years), and 15.4% of patients had previous cardiac operations. Arterial cannulation was femoral in 79.0% and central in 21%, with the port access balloon endo-occlusion used in 82.3%. Cardioplegia was transjugular retrograde (54.1%) or antegrade (29.4%). Right anterior minithoracotomy was used in 96.6% and left posterior minithoracotomy in 2.2%. RESULTS: Hospital mortality for primary isolated mitral valve repair was 1.1% and 5.8% for isolated mitral valve replacement. Overall hospital mortality was 4.2% (30 of 714). Mean cross-clamp time was 92 minutes and mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 127 minutes. Postoperatively, median ventilation time was 11 hours, intensive care unit time was 19 hours, and total hospital stay was 6 days. Complications for all patients included permanent neurologic deficit (2.9%), aortic dissection (0.3%); there was no mediastinal infection (0.0%). Follow-up echocardiography demonstrated 89.1% of the repair patients had only trace or no residual mitral insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the minimally invasive port access approach to mitral valve operations is reproducible with low perioperative morbidity and mortality and with late outcomes that are equivalent to conventional operations.     

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: technical considerations and results with the parasternal approach

BACKGROUND: The history of surgery over the last 30 years has moved steadily toward minimally invasive surgery; more recent experience with the gall bladder, arthroscopy, and video-assisted thoracic surgery has confirmed this trend. METHODS: Our experience in minimally invasive valve surgery between July 1996 and October 1997 included 180 patients, 80 with aortic valve replacement and 100 with mitral valve replacement. The 80 aortic valve replacement patients consisted of 46 males and 34 females, with a mean age of 63 years (range 32 to 90 years) and mean New York Heart Association Functional Class 2.5. The etiology of disease was varied: degenerative in 41 patients, congenital in 17, rheumatic in 8, subacute bacterial endocarditis in 6, myxomatous in 4, and structural valve degeneration in 4. RESULTS: There were two (2.5%) operative deaths, both from multisystem organ failure. Only 16 (20%) of the 80 patients experienced new postoperative atrial fibrillation. The mean length of stay in the hospital was 5 days (range 3 to 24 days). Only 18 (23%) of the 78 surviving patients required posthospital rehabilitation, and there were no late deaths. Morbidity included cerebrovascular accident in 1 patient (1.2%), sternal infection in 1 (1.2%), groin infection in 1 (1.2%), and bleeding requiring reoperation in 1 (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery is extremely effective and has become our current technique of choice in every mitral and aortic valve patient who does not have coronary artery disease because it reduces the length of hospital stay and cost, requires fewer blood transfusions, and stimulates less atrial fibrillation.     

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.     

Comparison of limited and full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement

Objective: The practice of minimally invasive valve surgery remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and postoperative course of aortic valve replacement through limited upper sternotomy compared to conventional full sternotomy. Methods: From May 1998 to August 2000, we performed 24 cases of isolated aortic valve replacements through the limited upper sternotomy approach (group M). During the same period, 18 patients received isolated aortic valve replacements through the conventional full sternotomy approach (group C). Operation duration, postoperative course and laboratory data were compared between the two groups. Results: All patients received a valve replacement with a prosthetic valve. There was no significant difference between the two groups in mean aortic cross-clamping time, mean cardiopulmonary bypass time or mean operation duration (skin to skin). No patient required blood transfusion. Patients in the group M were extubated earlier, with less postoperative blood loss and discharged earlier after the operation than those in group C. On the first postoperative day, the peak level of lactic acid dehydrogenease was significantly lower in the group M than those in group C. Conclusion: Limited upper sternotomy for aortic valve replacement resulted in shorter operation duration and minimized operative risks for the patients. We believe this method brings not only cosmetic benefits but also improved postoperative course.     

Minimally invasive mitral valve repair suggests earlier operations for mitral valve disease

OBJECTIVE: We began minimally invasive mitral valve surgery in August, 1996, to reduce hospital costs, to improve patient recovery, cosmetic appearance, and to decrease trauma, yet maintain the same quality of surgery. To validate this approach we reviewed our entire experience through May 2002. METHODS: From August 1996 to May 2002, we performed 413 minimally invasive mitral valve operations including 51 mitral valve replacements and 362 mitral valve repairs. Excluding 4 robotically assisted repairs, we evaluated 358 patients, using the mitral valve repairs as the basis for this retrospective survey. These operations were performed through a 6- to 8-cm minimally invasive incision, beginning with parasternal and, most recently, lower ministernotomy (181 patients). The mitral valve reparative techniques include repair of 94 prolapsed anterior leaflets, posterior leaflet resection, leaflet advancement, commissuroplasty, Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; Gore-Tex, W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc, Flagstaff, Ariz) chordal placement, and ring annuloplasty. Cannulation sites varied but primarily utilized a miniaturized system of 24F catheters in both the inferior and superior venae cavae with assisted venous suction. The Cosgrove ring was used in 95% of the patients undergoing this procedure. RESULTS: The operative mortality was 0/358. Perioperative morbidity included a 26% incidence of new atrial fibrillation, 2% incidence of pacemaker implantation, 0.5% incidence of deep sternal wound infection, and 1.9% incidence of stroke after an operation. There were 10 arterial and 3 venous complications. The mean length of stay was 6 days and 208 patients stayed < or =5 days. Only 25% of the patients underwent homologous blood transfusion. The mean follow-up was 36 months with 1.4% lost to follow-up. There were 12 late deaths and a survival at 5 years of 95%. There were 21 valves requiring reoperation for structural valve failure of 5.8%. The probability of freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 92%. CONCLUSION: This study documents the safety of minimally invasive mitral valve repair surgery in 358 patients. It also documents a low incidence of homologous blood use, requirement for post-hospital rehabilitation, and general morbidity.     

Mitral valve repair in redo cardiac surgery

An increasing number of patients are being referred for mitral valve repair in the redo cardiac surgery setting. The most common clinical scenarios involve prior coronary bypass surgery or aortic valve replacement, each presenting special challenges in terms of gaining valve exposure to enable repair while limiting dissection as much as possible. A right anterior thoracotomy approach is preferred in most patients, coupled with hypothermic fibrillatory arrest. A repeat sternotomy may be favored in select circumstances such as when there is a need for bypass grafting or moderate aortic insufficiency is present. Special attention to cannulation techniques, perfusion conditions, valve exposure, and de-airing maneuvers are all important to ensure good clinical results. Using a tailored approach we have performed mitral valve repair in 22 patients with a patent left internal mammary artery graft following coronary artery bypass grafting between July 1992 and February 2000 with acceptable morbidity and low mortality.     

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.     

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.     

A case of right ventricular outflow tract obstruction after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is commonly used to treat aortic valve disease through smaller incisions and upper hemisternotomy. No major differences in postoperative outcomes have been reported compared with full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. In this case report, we present a rare complication of right ventricular outflow tract obstruction after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.