Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIC-MVS) was introduced into clinical practice in the mid 1990s. Since then it has evolved as the standard technique at some specialized centers. The routine technique includes femoral access for extracorporeal circulation, a right lateral minithoracotomy and direct aortic clamping using special instruments. Different techniques leading to some variations have been described. There is no prospectively randomized trial comparing minimally invasive with conventional mitral valve surgery. However, several series including large patient numbers and up to 8 years of follow-up have been published. Literature results as well as different aspects of minimally invasive MVS are discussed in this review, including the development, the current technique and future perspectives. Regarding MIC-MVS the word is that it is a safe and effective operation. Lateral minithoracotomy access offers excellent exposure, visualization can be further enhanced when using endoscopic cameras. All different mitral valve repair procedures can be performed even in the presence of complex pathologies. The repair rate is excellent and reaches 75%. Patient recovery is fast leading to a significant improvement in individual quality of life. MIC-MVS can now be considered the standard approach and will reach more widespread clinical application.     

Minimally invasive surgery with a partial sternotomy "J" approach

The minimally invasive partial sternotomy "J" incision can be used for most isolated mitral valves, tricuspid valves, aortic valves, atrial septal defects, maze procedures, aortic repairs, and aortic valve reoperations. This article reviews the technical approaches and outcomes for various procedures. For 2,004 mitral valve repairs, our 30-day in-hospital mortality was 0.2% and for 1,103 aortic valve procedures, it was 0.8%. In addition to both a better cosmetic result and earlier return to work, the benefits include less blood loss, less pain, better respiratory function, and better 1-year survival for mitral valve procedures. Similar results have been obtained for aortic valve procedures. Thus, all patients undergoing isolated aortic or mitral valve repairs are offered a minimally invasive operation.     

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery after failed transcatheter mitral valve repair in an intermediate-risk cohort

Open in a separate window OBJECTIVESAlthough clinical experience with transcatheter mitral valve interventions is rapidly increasing, there is still a lack of evidence regarding surgical treatment options for the management of recurrent mitral regurgitation (MR). This study provides guidance for a minimally invasive surgical approach following failed transcatheter mitral valve repair, which is based on the underlying mitral valve (MV) pathology and the type of intervention.METHODSA total of 46 patients who underwent minimally invasive MV surgery due to recurrent or residual MR after transcatheter edge-to-edge repair or direct interventional annuloplasty between October 2014 and March 2021 were included.RESULTSThe median age of the patients was 78 [interquartile range, 71–82] years and the EuroSCORE II was 4.41 [interquartile range, 2.66–6.55]. At the index procedure, edge-to-edge repair had been performed in 45 (97.8%) patients and direct annuloplasty in 1 patient. All patients with functional MR at the index procedure (n = 36) underwent MV replacement. Of the patients with degenerative MR (n = 10), 5 patients were eligible for MV repair after removal of the MitraClip. The 1-year survival following surgical treatment was 81.3% and 75.0% in patients with functional and degenerative MR, respectively. No residual MR greater than mild during follow-up was observed in patients who underwent MV repair.CONCLUSIONSMinimally invasive surgery following failed transcatheter mitral valve repair is feasible and safe, with promising midterm survival. The surgical management should be tailored to the underlying valve pathology at the index procedure, the extent of damage of the MV leaflets and the type of previous intervention.     

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.     

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a review of the literature

Purpose

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) is a heterogenous concept referring to a gamut of surgical approaches to the mitral valve. When compared to conventional sternotomy (CONV-ST), MIMVS appears to offer superior patient satisfaction and recovery time. However, published results differ between institutions due to variations in technique, and mid- to long-term data is relatively scant. Despite the limitations of the evidence base, patient demand for minimally invasive operations remains strong. This demand is only likely to rise in the future as surgery is being recommended earlier in the course of disease and patients are referred for operation at a younger age. This review therefore isolates each MIMVS technique to evaluate its place in current surgical practice, as well as areas of future research.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Search terms included ‘minimally invasive surgical procedures’, ‘mitral valve’, ‘sternotomy’, ‘thoracotomy’, ‘mitral valve repair’, and ‘mitral valve replacement’. Articles were also gathered from other sources, including manual searches through reference lists of articles and recommended ‘related articles’.

Summary

MIMVS has evolved from using smaller incisions to endoscopic surgery, robotics, and, most recently, percutaneous off-pump procedures. It is now standard practice at centres around the world. At present, the right minithoracotomy is the most common approach, though robotic and percutaneous techniques are suitable for certain patients. Collaboration between cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, and other disciplines will be essential in furthering the newest minimally invasive techniques. Future research should depend on long-term data, broad patient sampling, and high-tier evidence.

     

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 direct access mitral valve surgery.

We reviewed our experience with minimally invasive direct-access mitral valve surgery in 207 patients through February 1999. Three patients underwent associated procedures, a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) with right internal mammary artery to right carotid artery (RIMA-RCA), a left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) debridement for endocarditis, and a primum atrial septal defect (ASD) repair, and were excluded from analysis. Of the 204 remaining patients, 120 (59%) patients were men, aged 58.7 +/- 13.2 years, functional class of 2.3 +/- 0.5. The cause was myxomatous in 162 (79%) patients, rheumatic in 28 (14%) patients, endocarditis in 8 (4%) patients, congenital in 3 (2%) patients, and ischemic in 3 (2%) patients. Mean preoperative EF was 60% +/- 10%, with 184 (90%) patients showing ejection fraction (EF) greater than 50%. The valve was approached through a 5- to 8-cm right parasternal (n = 180, 88%) or right inframammary (n = 24, 12%) incision. One hundred nineteen (58%) patients had open femoral artery-femoral vein cannulation, and 85 (42%) patients had direct cannulation of the aorta and percutaneous cannulation of the femoral vein. One hundred seventy (83%) patients underwent successful valve repair, and 34 (17%) patients required valve replacement. The mean duration of aortic clamping and cardiopulmonary were, respectively, 100 +/- 34 and 146 +/- 44 minutes. There were 2 (1%) surgical deaths. Nonfatal perioperative complications included 3 (1.5%) ascending aortic complications, 3 (1.5%) reoperations for bleeding, 4 (2%) strokes, 2 (1%) transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), 2 (1%) myocardial infarctions, 3 (1.5%) pericardial effusions requiring drainage, 9 (4.5%) vascular complications, and 3 (1.5%) wound complications. Mean length of stay (LOS) was 6.1 +/- 3 days, with 63 (31%) patients being discharged in less than 5 days. One hundred twenty-nine (63%) patients did not require blood transfusions. Follow-up was complete in 165 (81%) patients, with mean follow-up of 13.2 +/- 8 months. Late complications included 1 (0.5%) myocardial infarction, 3 (1.5%) reoperations, all converting repairs to replacements, 3 (1.5%) wound hernias requiring reoperation and repair with mesh, 5 (2.5%) thromboembolic events, and 3 (1.5%) deaths of suicide, pneumonia, and sudden death, respectively. Mean follow-up New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was 1.2 +/- 0.5. We conclude that minimally invasive direct-access mitral valve surgery is safe, effective, and applicable for most patients presenting for isolated mitral valve surgery. We now consider it the standard of care for selected patients.     

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 surgery of mitral valve (MIS-MV)

Following the revision of the therapeutic guideline of ACC/AHA in (Circulation 114:450–527, 2006), the incidence of mitral valve repair in asymptomatic patients with moderate or severe mitral valve regurgitation has increased. For mitral valve repair, the quality and outcomes as well as lower invasive procedure are important to obtain the confidence of cardiologists and ensure request of early phase operation from cardiologists. With recent innovations of technologies and the development of revolutionary techniques, minimally invasive surgery of the mitral valve (MIS-MV) has become a widespread surgical option of mitral valve repair. It is vital, however, that careful preoperative assessment, and planning of the approach and perfusion strategy are put in place to perform MIS-MV safely.     

Patient-reported outcome measures after mitral valve repair: a comparison between minimally invasive and sternotomy

OBJECTIVESTo compare patient-reported outcome measures of minimally invasive (MI) to sternotomy (ST) mitral valve repair.Open in a separate windowMETHODSWe included all patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery via either a right mini-thoracotomy (MI) or ST over a 36-month period. Patients were asked to complete a modified Composite Physical Function questionnaire. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures were compared between 2 propensity-matched groups (n = 47/group), assessing 3 domains: ‘Recovery Time’, ‘Postoperative Pain’ (at day 2 and 1, 3, 6 and 12 weeks) and ‘Treatment Satisfaction’. Composite scores for each domain were subsequently constructed and multivariable analysis was used to determine whether surgical approach was associated with domain scores.RESULTSThe response rate was 79%. There was no mortality in either group. In the matched groups, operative times were longer in the MI group (P < 0.001), but postoperative outcomes were similar. Composite scores for Recovery Time [ST 51.7 (31.8–62.1) vs MI 61.7 (43.1–73.9), P = 0.03] and Pain [ST 65.7 (40.1–83.1) vs MI 79.1 (65.5–89.5), P = 0.02] significantly favoured the MI group. Scores in the Treatment Satisfaction domain were high for both surgical approaches [ST 100 (82.5–100) vs MI 100 (95.0–100), P = 0.15]. The strongest independent predictor of both faster recovery parameter estimate 12.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7–18.3, P < 0.001] and less pain parameter estimate 7.6 (95% CI 0.7–14.5, P = 0.03) was MI surgery.CONCLUSIONSMI surgery was associated with faster recovery and less pain; treatment satisfaction and safety profiles were similar.     

Minimally invasive, robotic, and off-pump mitral valve surgery

A significant transformation is occurring in the management of mitral valve disease. Earlier surgery is now recommended. Mitral valve repair is the standard of care, and newer methods of reconstructing the mitral valve are developing. Surgery with videoscopic assistance can be effectively performed without sternotomy. Robotics systems are gaining wider adoption. Implantable devices to repair or replace the mitral valve off-pump and percutaneously are emerging.