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 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.     

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.     

Minimally invasive mitral surgery: mitral valve repair with a right-sided partial sternotomy

We describe our concept and the results of mitral valve repair using a right-sided partial sternotomy. We performed mitral valve repair using this method in 50 patients with severe MR between April 1997 and October 1998. In 10 patients in whom good exposure was not attained, we changed to the ordinary full-sternotomy or T-shaped partial sternotomyprocedure. Forty patients with good exposure underwent successful mitral valve repair. The sites of repair were anterior in 15 cases, posterior in 16, and both in 9. There was no mortality, and intraoperative TEE performed in all 40 patients revealed that all had trivial or no regurgitation. The right-sided partial sternotomy (open door method) is a safe and useful method for minimally invasive valve Surgery. A better quality of life compared with traditional median sternotomy can be ensured for patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery only when receive the best-quality Surgery is performed.     

Redo mitral valve surgery-a long-term experience

BACKGROUND: Our experience with reoperative mitral valve (MV) surgery over a 27-year period is presented here. METHODS: From January 1975 to June 2002, 11,908 operations were performed for MV disease. Out of these 744 were reoperations. The mean age at primary operation was 23.6 +/- 10.1 years (range 2 to 53 years) and at reoperation was 36.0 +/- 11.0 years (range 6 to 65 years) with a mean interval of 11.5 +/- 2.5 years. Mitral valve replacement (MVR) was performed following previous closed mitral valvotomy (CMV) in 408 patients, open mitral commissurotomy (OMC) in 21 patients, and MV repair in 58 patients, MVR in 80 patients, homograft mitral valve replacement (HMVR) in 11 patients. The reasons for reoperation were mainly progression of lesions. Valve thrombosis and endocarditis were indications for reoperation following MVR. Twenty-eight patients underwent redo CMV, 53 patients underwent OMC, and 14 patients underwent MV Repair. RESULTS: Early mortality was 5.64% (n = 42). Hemorrhage and low cardiac output were the major causes. Follow-up was 124.8 +/- 30.5 months (2 to 300 months). Follow-up was 88%. There were no late deaths in the valve repair group. There were three episodes of thromboembolism in this group (0.3% per patient-year). In the valve replacement group there were six late deaths; three due to valve thrombosis, one due to infective endocarditis, and two due to anticoagulant-related hemorrhage. There were 13 episodes of thromboembolism in this group (0.6% per patient-year). CONCLUSION: Redo MV surgery is safe and can be undertaken with acceptable mortality and morbidity.     

Mitral valve repair and replacement for rheumatic disease

OBJECTIVES: Mitral valve repair may be technically feasible in patients with suitable anatomy, but the appropriateness of repair for rheumatic disease remains controversial. We evaluated our late outcomes after mitral repair and replacement for rheumatic disease. METHODS: Five hundred seventy-three patients underwent mitral valve surgery for rheumatic disease at our institution from 1978-1995. Follow-up was 98% complete (mean, 68 +/- 46 months). Survival and morbidity were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression, including propensity score analysis. RESULTS: Mean age was 54 +/- 14 years, 55% of patients had congestive heart failure, 22% were undergoing redo mitral valve surgery, and 9% also underwent coronary bypass. Mitral stenosis was present in 53%, regurgitation in 15%, and both in 32%. Valve repair was performed in 25%, bioprosthetic replacement was performed in 28%, and a mechanical valve was placed in 47%. Patients undergoing repair were younger and less likely to be undergoing reoperation or to have atrial fibrillation than those undergoing replacement (P =.001). The operative mortality rate was 4. 2%. Better late cardiac survival was independently predicted by valve repair rather than replacement (P =.04) after adjustment for baseline differences between patients. Freedom from reoperation was greatest (P =.005) but that from thromboembolic complications was worst (P <.0001) after mechanical valve replacement. Twenty-three patients underwent reoperation after initial repair, with no operative deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical valves minimize reoperation but limit survival and increase thromboembolic complications. Patients undergoing valve repair had improved late cardiac survival independent of their preoperative characteristics. Rheumatic mitral valves should be repaired when technically feasible, accepting a risk of reoperation, to maximize survival and reduce morbidity.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Beating Heart Video-Assisted Mitral Valve Surgery: A Useful Technique for High-Risk Patients

Abstract   Background: Beating-heart valve surgery through a sternotomy has been used as an excellent myocardial protection strategy in high risk patients. Minimally invasive approaches have reduced the trauma and enhanced the recovery of patients undergoing heart surgery. We hypothesized that high-risk patients undergoing mitral valve surgery will benefit from a combination of these two approaches. Methods: A 52-year-old male with dilated cardiomyopathy and left ventricular function of 15% was referred for surgery because of congestive heart failure. Results: Using a 4-cm right minithoracotomy and femoral cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass, successful beating-heart video-assisted mitral valve repair was performed. The adequacy of myocardial protection was confirmed by absence of ischemic electrophysiologic changes. The patient was discharged home on the 6^th postoperative day. Conclusion: Beating-heart strategy can be combined with a minimally invasive approach in patients with severely reduced ventricular function, who require mitral valve surgery.     

Mitral surgery after prior cardiac operation: port-access versus sternotomy or thoracotomy

BACKGROUND: In reoperation for mitral valve disease, minimally invasive Port-Access (PORT) is a new alternative to standard median sternotomy (STER) or right thoracotomy (THOR); yet, the results of PORT in this setting have not been defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of minimally invasive thoracotomy in reoperation for mitral valve disease. METHODS: Retrospective results are reported for three consecutive series of patients undergoing reoperation for mitral disease using either PORT (n = 60, 1996 to 2001), THOR (n = 37, 1985 to 1997), or STER (n = 155, 1985 to 1997). RESULTS: Red cell transfusion was 3 +/- 4, 14 +/- 13, and 12 +/- 12 units for PORT, THOR, and STER, respectively. Chest tube output was 352 +/- 361, 2048 +/- 3166, and 1683 +/- 3939 mL, respectively. Cardiopulmonary bypass times for these groups were 208 +/- 76 vs. 158 +/- 56 vs. 157 +/- 53 minutes. Thirty-day mortality was 0/60 (0%), 8/37 (22%), and 21/155 (14%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This early clinical experience suggests that PORT is an acceptable alternative to THOR or STERN in reoperation for mitral valve disease, with potential advantages of avoiding redo sternotomy and reducing the surgical incision. However, these benefits may come at the expense of longer cardiopulmonary bypass times.     

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.     

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 reoperative isolated valve surgery: early and mid-term results

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive, nonsternotomy approaches for valve procedures may reduce the risks associated with cardiac surgery after prior sternotomy and may improve outcomes. We analyzed our institutional experience to test this hypothesis. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2002, 498 patients with previous cardiac operations via sternotomy underwent isolated valve surgery: 337 via median sternotomy (aortic = 160; mitral = 177) and 161 via mini-thoracotomy (aortic = 61; mitral = 100). Data were collected prospectively using the New York State Cardiac Surgery Report Form. RESULTS: Preoperative incidences of congestive heart failure, renal disease, and nonelective procedures were higher in the sternotomy group. Hospital mortality was significantly lower with the minimally invasive approach, 5.6% (9/161) versus 11.3% (38/337) (univariate, p = 0.04). However, multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 95% confidence intervals, p value) revealed that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (6.6: 1.4 to 3.1, p = 0.001), renal disease (4.1: 1.52 to 11.2, p = 0.01), cerebrovascular disease (2.2: 1.03 to 4.78, p = 0.04), and ejection faction <30% (1.5: 0.96 to 5.5, p = 0.06) were associated with increased mortality. While mean bypass time, cross-clamp times, and stroke rates were comparable between groups, patients undergoing minimally invasive valve surgery had no deep wound infections (0% vs 2.4%, p = 0.05), less need for blood products (p = 0.02), and shorter hospital stays (p = 0.009). Five-year survival was higher with minimally invasive techniques as compared to a sternotomy approach (92.4 +/- 2% and 86.0 +/- 2%, respectively, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Reoperative valve surgery can be safely performed using a nonsternotomy, minimally invasive approach, with at least equal mortality, less hospital morbidity, decreased hospital length of stay, and slightly favorable mid-term survival as compared to sternotomy.     

How to Avoid Problems in Redo Coronary Artery Bypass

ABSTRACT Background: Redo cardiac surgery still carries higher mortality and increased morbidity as compared with primary coronary revascularizations. Various steps can be taken to decrease the incidences of adverse outcomes. From our experience, we have accumulated safe steps to be taken during the surgical procedure to reach a positive outcome. Methods: We reviewed our own experience of redo coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) at two institutions during the last 4 years. Though the surgeons were the same at both institutions, because of institutional variability of patient referrals, operative equipment, anesthesia management, and preoperative care, we kept the data separate. Five surgeons performed CABG with almost similar myocardial preservation techniques; however, the surgical skill varied slightly depending on the seniority and clinical experience. We performed 433 redo coronary artery revascularizations at one institution and 201 in the second institution. Fifteen percent of these patients also had additional procedures, such as valve repair, valve replacement, or aneurysm resection. In this patient group, 160 patients underwent either urgent or emergent CABG. Urgent surgery was defined as patient revascularization during the same admission as cardiac catheterization, and emergency surgery was defined as a patient undergoing surgery on the same day as the catheterization, especially when hemodynamic instability was present. The total mortality was 7%, while the elective redo CABG mortality was 3%. The length of stay ranged from 8.5 to 12.6 days. The morbidity included perioperative stroke in 18 patients and nonfatal perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) in 19 patients. Major factors contributing to the mortality were stroke, perioperative bleeding and exploration, renal failure, respiratory failure, and malnutrition. Conclusion: We outlined the precautions and safe surgical approaches to be undertaken during redo CABG for a successful outcome.     

How to avoid problems in redo coronary artery bypass

BACKGROUND: Redo cardiac surgery still carries higher mortality and increased morbidity as compared with primary coronary revascularizations. Various steps can be taken to decrease the incidences of adverse outcomes. From our experience, we have accumulated safe steps to be taken during the surgical procedure to reach a positive outcome. METHODS: We reviewed our own experience of redo coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) at two institutions during the last 4 years. Though the surgeons were the same at both institutions, because of institutional variability of patient referrals, operative equipment, anesthesia management, and preoperative care, we kept the data separate. Five surgeons performed CABG with almost similar myocardial preservation techniques; however, the surgical skill varied slightly depending on the seniority and clinical experience. We performed 433 redo coronary artery revascularizations at one institution and 201 in the second institution. Fifteen percent of these patients also had additional procedures, such as valve repair, valve replacement, or aneurysm resection. In this patient group, 160 patients underwent either urgent or emergent CABG. Urgent surgery was defined as patient revascularization during the same admission as cardiac catheterization, and emergency surgery was defined as a patient undergoing surgery on the same day as the catheterization, especially when hemodynamic instability was present. The total mortality was 7%, while the elective redo CABG mortality was 3%. The length of stay ranged from 8.5 to 12.6 days. The morbidity included perioperative stroke in 18 patients and nonfatal perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) in 19 patients. Major factors contributing to the mortality were stroke, perioperative bleeding and exploration, renal failure, respiratory failure, and malnutrition. CONCLUSION: We outlined the precautions and safe surgical approaches to be undertaken during redo CABG for a successful outcome.     

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.