Marco Moscarelli1, Khalil Fattouch2, Mario Gaudino3, Giuseppe Nasso2, Domenico Paparella4, Prakash Punjabi5, Thanos Athanasiou5, Umberto Benedetto6, Gianni D Angelini6, Giuseppe Santarpino7, Giuseppe Speziale2. 1. Imperial College NHLI, and Cardiothoracic and Vascular Department, Maria Cecilia Hospital, GVM Care & Research, Cotignola, RA, Italy. Electronic address: m.moscarelli@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Cardiothoracic and Vascular Department, Maria Cecilia Hospital, GVM Care & Research, Cotignola, RA, Italy. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 4. Santa Maria Hospital, GVM Care & Research, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplant, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy. 5. Imperial College of London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 6. Bristol Heart Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. 7. GVM Care and Research, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Bari, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is high demand for minimally invasive mitral valve repair; however, it is unclear whether the minimally invasive approach provides the same performance as conventional sternotomy in a context of complex mitral valve disease. Here, we compared outcomes of minimally invasive and sternotomy procedures for bileaflet and Barlow's mitral valve disease. METHODS: We performed a pooled meta-analysis of studies reporting early and late follow-up of mitral valve repair for complex mitral valve regurgitation. The primary outcome was moderate mitral valve regurgitation recurrence and need for reoperation. Secondary outcomes included operation time, reopening for bleeding, associated tricuspid procedures, failed repair, and inhospital mortality. Incidence rates were calculated for long-term follow-up. Effect estimates were calculated as incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals. When Kaplan-Meier curves were available, event rates were estimated from the curves with Plot Digitizer software; otherwise, reported event rates were used to calculate incidence rates. RESULTS: Eighteen studies including 1905 patients (654 minimally invasive and 1251 sternotomy) with a mean follow-up of 51.6 months (range, 14 to 138) were meta-analyzed with a random model. There were no significant between-group differences in moderate mitral valve regurgitation recurrence and reoperation (minimally invasive vs sternotomy, 1.7% [95% confidence interval, 1.0% to 2.9%] vs 1.3% [95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 1.8%], P = .22). Patients in the minimally invasive group were exposed to significantly longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (P < .01); however, there were no additional between-group differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis has demonstrated that minimally invasive and sternotomy approaches produce comparable results for complex mitral valve repair.
BACKGROUND: There is high demand for minimally invasive mitral valve repair; however, it is unclear whether the minimally invasive approach provides the same performance as conventional sternotomy in a context of complex mitral valve disease. Here, we compared outcomes of minimally invasive and sternotomy procedures for bileaflet and Barlow's mitral valve disease. METHODS: We performed a pooled meta-analysis of studies reporting early and late follow-up of mitral valve repair for complex mitral valve regurgitation. The primary outcome was moderate mitral valve regurgitation recurrence and need for reoperation. Secondary outcomes included operation time, reopening for bleeding, associated tricuspid procedures, failed repair, and inhospital mortality. Incidence rates were calculated for long-term follow-up. Effect estimates were calculated as incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals. When Kaplan-Meier curves were available, event rates were estimated from the curves with Plot Digitizer software; otherwise, reported event rates were used to calculate incidence rates. RESULTS: Eighteen studies including 1905 patients (654 minimally invasive and 1251 sternotomy) with a mean follow-up of 51.6 months (range, 14 to 138) were meta-analyzed with a random model. There were no significant between-group differences in moderate mitral valve regurgitation recurrence and reoperation (minimally invasive vs sternotomy, 1.7% [95% confidence interval, 1.0% to 2.9%] vs 1.3% [95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 1.8%], P = .22). Patients in the minimally invasive group were exposed to significantly longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (P < .01); however, there were no additional between-group differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis has demonstrated that minimally invasive and sternotomy approaches produce comparable results for complex mitral valve repair.
Authors: Rebecca H Maier; Adetayo S Kasim; Joseph Zacharias; Luke Vale; Richard Graham; Antony Walker; Grzegorz Laskawski; Ranjit Deshpande; Andrew Goodwin; Simon Kendall; Gavin J Murphy; Vipin Zamvar; Renzo Pessotto; Clinton Lloyd; Malcolm Dalrymple-Hay; Roberto Casula; Hunaid A Vohra; Franco Ciulli; Massimo Caputo; Serban Stoica; Max Baghai; Gunaratnam Niranjan; Prakash P Punjabi; Olaf Wendler; Leanne Marsay; Cristina Fernandez-Garcia; Paul Modi; Bilal H Kirmani; Mark D Pullan; Andrew D Muir; Dimitrios Pousios; Helen C Hancock; Enoch Akowuah Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.692