Improved operative and recovery times with mini-thoracotomy aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: The small incisions of minimally invasive surgery have the proposed benefit of less surgical trauma, less pain, and faster recovery. This study was done to compare minimally invasive techniques for aortic valve replacement, including right anterior mini-thoracotomy and mini-sternotomy, to conventional sternotomy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 503 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institution from 2012 to 2015 using one of three techniques: 1) Mini-thoracotomy, 2) Mini-sternotomy, 3) Conventional sternotomy. Demographics, operative morbidity, mortality, and postoperative complications were compared. RESULTS: Of the 503 cases, 267 (53.1%) were mini-thoracotomy, 120 (23.8%) were mini-sternotomy, and 116 (23.1%) were conventional sternotomy. Mini-thoracotomy patients, compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy, had significantly shorter bypass times [82 (IQ 67-113) minutes; vs. 117 (93.5-139.5); vs. 102.5 (85.5-132.5), respectively (p < 0.0001)], a lower incidence of prolonged ventilator support [3.75% vs. 9.17 and 12.9%, respectively (p = 0.0034)], and required significantly shorter ICU and postoperative stays, resulting in an overall shorter hospitalization [6 (IQ 5-9) days; vs. 7 (5-14.5); vs 9 (6-15.5), respectively (p < 0.05)]. Incidence of other postoperative complications were lower in the mini-thoracotomy group compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy, without significance. Minimally invasive techniques trended towards better survival [mini-thoracotomy 1.5%, mini-sternotomy 1.67%, and conventional sternotomy 5.17% (p = 0.13)]. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement approaches are safe, effective alternatives to conventional sternotomy. The mini-thoracotomy approach showed decreased operative times, decreased lengths of stay, decreased incidence of prolonged ventilator time, and a trend towards lower mortality when compared to mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy.

Femoral cannulation: a safe vascular access option for cardiopulmonary bypass in minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

Femoral cannulation during cardiopulmonary bypass has become a common approach for many cardiac procedures and serves as an important access option, especially during minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Opponents, however, argue that there is significant risk, including site-specific and overall morbidity, which makes the use of this modality dangerous compared to conventional aortoatrial cannulation techniques. We analyzed our institutional experience to elucidate the safety and efficacy of femoral cannulation. All data were collected from a single hospital's cardiac surgery database. A total of 346 cardiac surgeries were evaluated from September 2012 to September 2013, of which 85/346 (24.6%) utilized a minimally invasive approach. Of the 346 operations performed, 72/346 (20.8%) utilized femoral cannulation while 274/346 (79.2%) used aortoatrial cannulation. Stroke occurred in 1/72 (1.39%) after femoral cannulation, specifically, in a conventional sternotomy patient, while it occurred in 6/274 (2.19%) [p=0.67] after aortoatrial cannulation. When comparing postoperative complications between the femoral cannulation and aortoatrial cannulation groups, the rates of atrial fibrillation [10/72 (13.9%) versus 46/274 (16.8%), p=0.55], renal failure [2/72 (2.78%) versus 11/274 (4.01%), p=0.62], prolonged ventilation time [4/72 (5.56%) versus 27/274 (9.85%), p=0.26] and re-operation for bleeding [3/72 (4.17%) versus 13/274 (4.74%), p=0.84] showed no significant difference. Selective femoral cannulation provides a safe alternative to aortoatrial cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass and is especially important when performing minimally invasive cardiac surgery. When comparing aortoatrial and femoral cannulation, we found no significant difference in the postoperative complication rates and overall mortality.

Factors impacting functional health and resource utilization following abdominal aortic aneurysm repair by open and endovascular techniques.

We assessed the impact on patient outcomes of comorbidities and type of aneurysm repair, open vs. endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Functional health status was measured prospectively using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey. Length of stay (LOS) and need for postdischarge resources (nursing and rehabilitation) were compared between groups. We reviewed the records of 218 patients (126 open, 92 EVAR) who underwent intervention between 1998 and 2003. The SF-36 was completed preoperatively and at intervals ranging from 2 weeks to 1 year after intervention. To identify factors impacting outcome, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Overall mortality was 1.9%: 3.2% for open repair and 0% for EVAR (p = 0.13). Physical and mental health were higher during the 3 months following EVAR compared with open repair: physical function (PF) (65.2 +/- 4.1 vs. 54.0 +/- 4.1), vitality (VT) (55.5 +/- 2.5 vs. 44.9 +/- 3.4), and emotional role (ER) (74.9 +/- 5.0 vs. 51.4 +/- 6.7) (analysis of variance p < 0.05). Women following EVAR had decreased physical summary scores (PSS) (34.8 +/- 2.5 vs. 40.4 +/- 1.1, p < 0.05) compared with men postprocedure despite no difference preoperatively. Congestive heart failure (CHF) was an independent factor that negatively impacted PF, body pain (BP), and PSS. EVAR was associated with improved VT and ER. Differences among open repair and EVAR diminished over time. LOS (in days) was greater for open vs. EVAR (9.2 +/- 0.78 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.17) and in women following both open (11.8 +/- 1.5 vs. 8.0 +/- 0.9) and EVAR (3.2 +/- 0.9 vs. 1.8 +/- 0.1) procedures (p < 0.05). Factors that adversely affected LOS were open repair, age, renal insufficiency, pulmonary disease, CHF, and female gender. Following EVAR, patients were less likely to require home care or transfer to a rehabilitation facility than after open repair (14.1 vs. 36.0%, p < 0.05). Women were significantly more likely to require postdischarge care after open repair (48.7 vs. 30.1%) and EVAR (41.7 vs. 10.0%) (p < 0.05). Logistic regression identified female gender, open repair, advanced age, and pulmonary disease as independent predictors of need for postdischarge care. Those patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair by open technique (compared to EVAR) had significantly impaired functional health with regard to PF, VT, and ER in the first 3 months after surgery. CHF and hypertension also significantly impaired individual functional health scores. Of significance was that female gender was associated with increased LOS and increased utilization of postdischarge nursing and rehabilitation resources following both open and endovascular surgery for AAA.

Resource utilization and outcomes: effect of transfer on patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

We evaluated the transfer of patients with the diagnosis of a ruptured AAA (rAAA) from community centers to a tertiary care center. Our purpose was to identify factors associated with mortality and outcomes following the open repair of rAAA and to evaluate the differences between transferred and nontransferred patients. All patients who underwent repair of rAAA at our institution between 1995 and 2002 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify patient specific factors on presentation and intraoperatively. Fifty-two patients underwent repair of rAAA, 20 patients were transferred to our institution. The overall mortality rate was 67%. The mortality rates for nontransferred and transferred groups were 69% and 65%, respectively. The incidence of mortality within 24 hr of surgery was significantly higher in the patients who were not transferred, 10 vs. 41% (p < 0.05). Patient-specific factors assessed for impact on survival by logistic regression included decreased body temperature on arrival to our institution (p = 0.02) and free rupture (p = 0.05). Of intraoperative factors tested, low systolic blood pressure was significantly associated with mortality (p = 0.05). No difference in total length of stay was noted. Transfer patients' length of stay in the intensive care unit was significantly greater than that of nontransferred patients (18.8 +/- vs. 7.3 +/- days, p < 0.05). The difference in ICU cost was dollar 36,000 among groups. We found the acceptance of transfer patients from community centers with rAAA did not adversely affect patient survival. Transferred patients had an over twofold increases in ICU days used. The identification of hypothermia was the single independent factor associated with poor survival and may be a marker for transfer selection. Given reduced reimbursements and increased utilization, tertiary care centers will need to consider the economic ramifications of accepting transfer patients with rAAA.