Raphaelle A Chemtob1, Per Wierup1, Stephanie L Mick1, Michael J Javorski1, Daniel J P Burns1, Eugene H Blackstone2, Lars G Svensson1, A Marc Gillinov3. 1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: gillinom@ccf.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient selection for robotically assisted mitral valve repair remains controversial. We assessed outcomes of a conservative screening algorithm developed to select patients with degenerative mitral valve disease for robotic surgery. METHODS: From January 2014 to January 2019, a screening algorithm that included transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography scanning was rigorously applied by 3 surgeons to assess candidacy of 1000 consecutive patients with isolated degenerative mitral valve disease (age 58 ± 11 years, 67% male) for robotic surgery. Screening results and hospital outcomes of those selected for robotic versus sternotomy approaches were compared. RESULTS: With application of the screening algorithm, 605 patients were selected for robotic surgery. Common reasons for sternotomy (n = 395) were aortoiliac atherosclerosis (n = 74/292, 25%), femoral artery diameter <7 mm (n = 60/292, 20%), mitral annular calcification (n = 83/390, 21%), aortic regurgitation (n = 100/391, 26%), and reduced left ventricular function (n = 126/391, 32%). Mitral valve repair was accomplished in 996. Compared with sternotomy, patients undergoing robotic surgery had less new-onset atrial fibrillation (n = 144/582, 25% vs n = 125/373, 34%; P = .002), fewer red blood cell transfusions (n = 61/601, 10% vs 69/395, 17%; P < .001), and shorter hospital stay (5.2 ± 2.9 days vs 5.9 ± 2.1 days; P < .001). No hospital deaths occurred, and occurrence of postoperative stroke in the robotic (n = 3/605, 0.50%) and sternotomy (n = 4/395, 1.0%; P = .3) groups was similar. CONCLUSIONS: This conservative screening algorithm qualified 60% of patients with isolated degenerative mitral valve disease for robotic surgery. Outcomes were comparable with those obtained with sternotomy, validating this as an approach to select patients for robotic mitral valve surgery.
OBJECTIVE: Patient selection for robotically assisted mitral valve repair remains controversial. We assessed outcomes of a conservative screening algorithm developed to select patients with degenerative mitral valve disease for robotic surgery. METHODS: From January 2014 to January 2019, a screening algorithm that included transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography scanning was rigorously applied by 3 surgeons to assess candidacy of 1000 consecutive patients with isolated degenerative mitral valve disease (age 58 ± 11 years, 67% male) for robotic surgery. Screening results and hospital outcomes of those selected for robotic versus sternotomy approaches were compared. RESULTS: With application of the screening algorithm, 605 patients were selected for robotic surgery. Common reasons for sternotomy (n = 395) were aortoiliac atherosclerosis (n = 74/292, 25%), femoral artery diameter <7 mm (n = 60/292, 20%), mitral annular calcification (n = 83/390, 21%), aortic regurgitation (n = 100/391, 26%), and reduced left ventricular function (n = 126/391, 32%). Mitral valve repair was accomplished in 996. Compared with sternotomy, patients undergoing robotic surgery had less new-onset atrial fibrillation (n = 144/582, 25% vs n = 125/373, 34%; P = .002), fewer red blood cell transfusions (n = 61/601, 10% vs 69/395, 17%; P < .001), and shorter hospital stay (5.2 ± 2.9 days vs 5.9 ± 2.1 days; P < .001). No hospital deaths occurred, and occurrence of postoperative stroke in the robotic (n = 3/605, 0.50%) and sternotomy (n = 4/395, 1.0%; P = .3) groups was similar. CONCLUSIONS: This conservative screening algorithm qualified 60% of patients with isolated degenerative mitral valve disease for robotic surgery. Outcomes were comparable with those obtained with sternotomy, validating this as an approach to select patients for robotic mitral valve surgery.
Authors: Talia G Meidan; Allison T Lanfear; John J Squiers; Mohanad Hamandi; Bruce W Lytle; J Michael DiMaio; Robert L Smith Journal: JTCVS Tech Date: 2022-02-24
Authors: Michael L Williams; Bridget Hwang; Linna Huang; Ashley Wilson-Smith; John Brookes; Aditya Eranki; Tristan D Yan; T Sloane Guy; Johannes Bonatti Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2022-09