| Literature DB >> 32723379 |
Ling-Chen Huang1, Dao-Zhong Chen1, Liang-Wan Chen1, Qi-Chen Xu1, Zi-He Zheng1, Xiao-Fu Dai2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the impact of two different types of mitral valve surgery on health-related quality of life, we conducted a retrospective study comparing modified totally endoscopic mitral valve surgery with median sternotomy mitral valve surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Minimally invasive; Mitral valve surgery; Quality of life; SF-36
Year: 2020 PMID: 32723379 PMCID: PMC7388519 DOI: 10.1186/s13019-020-01242-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.637
Fig. 1A single two-stage femoral venous cannula
Fig. 2Surgical incisions for totally endoscopic mitral valve surgery
Fig. 3Intraoperative view of the patient with the mechanical valve installed, and correctly position of the single two-stage femoral venous cannula
Demographic and Intra-operative data compared between EA group and SA group
| Item | EA group | SA group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male/Female | 43/35 | 55/30 | 0.21 |
| Age (years) | 51.49 ± 11.87 | 51.69 ± 11.69 | 0.91 |
| Current NYHA (median) | II | II | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.66 ± 1.59 | 22.50 ± 1.80 | 0.55 |
| Lesion types of mitral valve | |||
| Mitral stenosis | 26 | 21 | 0.23 |
| Mitral insufficiency | 38 | 40 | |
| Mitral stenosis and insufficiency | 14 | 24 | |
| LVED | 58.35 ± 8.32 | 57.72 ± 8.69 | 0.64 |
| LVEF (%) | 58.50 ± 6.94 | 57.42 ± 5.79 | 0.29 |
| Surgery strategy | |||
| Mitral valve repair | 8 | 17 | 0.13 |
| Mitral valve replacement | 70 | 68 | |
| bioprothetic valves | 39 | 28 | 0.04 |
| Preservation of Subvalvular Apparatus | 33 | 54 | 0.01 |
| tricuspid valve plasty | 15 | 27 | 0.10 |
Postoperative Data
| Item | EA group | SA group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural Valve Deterioration | 0 | 0 | NS |
| Nonstructural Dysfunction | 0 | 0 | NS |
| Valve Thrombosis | 0 | 0 | NS |
| Embolism | 1 | 0 | NS |
| Bleeding Event | 2 | 1 | 0.94 |
| Operated Valve Endocarditis | 0 | 0 | NS |
| Reintervention | 0 | 0 | NS |
| Conduction Disturbance | 0 | 0 | NS |
| Poor wound healing | 2 | 2 | 1.00 |
| Pneumothorax | 3 | 0 | 0.21 |
| Subcutaneous emphysema | 2 | 0 | 0.45 |
| LVEF (%) | 54.98 ± 7.38 | 56.38 ± 5.22 | 0.16 |
| LVED (mm) | 55.76 ± 6.80 | 54.83 ± 6.19 | 0.36 |
| ICU stay (days) | 2.10 ± 1.12 | 2.17 ± 0.82 | 0.16 |
| Current NYHA (median) | I | I | |
| Postoperative hospital stay (days) | 5.17 ± 1.75 | 5.93 ± 1.14 | 0.16 |
| Hospital costs (RMB) | 100,980.24 ± 7405.36 | 101,309.91 ± 6911.20 | 0.77 |
SF-36 scores were compared between the two groups at 3 months after surgery
| Item | EA group | SA group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical functioning | 77.750 ± 8.0774 | 77.462 ± 8.0827 | 0.82 |
| Role physical | 71.15 ± 15.12 | 68.82 ± 15.39 | 0.33 |
| Bodily pain | 77.05 ± 14.78 | 70.12 ± 12.58 | 0.001 |
| General health | 65.13 ± 13.31 | 63.29 ± 1.51 | 0.347 |
| Vitality | 64.17 ± 11.99 | 63.29 ± 11.51 | 0.64 |
| Social functioning | 71.71 ± 12.20 | 70.38 ± 11.87 | 0.48 |
| Role emotional | 65.14 ± 17.86 | 62.18 ± 13.97 | 0.24 |
| Mental health | 74.62 ± 13.63 | 68.42 ± 17.95 | 0.015 |
assessment of different pain intensity and scar scale
| Item | EA group | SA group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NRS pain score | 0.40 ± 0.67 | 1.24 ± 0.65 | |
| SCAR score | 0.64 ± 0.60 | 1.75 ± 0.77 |
The coefficient of rank correlation between the SF-36 scores and the NRS and SCAR scale scores
| scale | Coefficient of rank correlation | Coefficient of rank correlation | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical functioning | 0.015 | −0.042 | 0.848 | 0.597 |
| Role physical | −0.029 | −0.032 | 0.709 | 0.681 |
| Bodily pain | −0.819 | − 0.181 | 0.021 | |
| General health | −0.317 | − 0.072 | 0.355 | |
| Vitality | −0.283 | − 0.035 | 0.660 | |
| Social functioning | −0.167 | 0.042 | 0.033 | 0.591 |
| Role emotional | −0.232 | −0.145 | 0.003 | 0.065 |
| Mental health | −0.132 | −0.791 | 0.092 |
P1: The coefficient of rank correlation between the SF-36 subscale scores and the NRS scores
P2: The coefficient of rank correlation between the SF-36 subscale scores and the SCAR scale scores
Correlation coefficients: 0–0.20 = “week”; 0.21–0.40 = “fair”; 0.41–0.60 = “moderate”; 0.61–0.80 = “strong”; 0.81–1.00 = “strongly correlation”