Minithoracotomy vs. Conventional Mitral Valve Surgery for Rheumatic Mitral Valve Stenosis: a Single-Center Analysis of 128 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the in-hospital outcomes of a right-sided anterolateral minithoracotomy with those of median sternotomy in patients who received a mitral valve replacement (MVR) because of rheumatic mitral valve stenosis (RMS). METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 128 patients (34% male) with RMS between 2011 and 2015. The median age was 53 years (45; 56). The mean ejection fraction was 58.4±6.3%. All the subjects were divided into two groups - Group 1 contained 78 patients who underwent MVR via minithoracotomy (MT-MVR), while Group 2 contained 50 patients who underwent MVR via median sternotomy (S-MVR). RESULTS: In the MT-MVR group, a mechanical prosthesis was implanted in 72% of cases, while it was implanted in 90% of cases in the S-MVR group (P=0.01). The duration of myocardial ischemia was similar (MT-MVR, 77±24 min; S-MVR, 70±18 min) (P=0.09). However, the cardiopulmonary bypass time was lower in the S-MVR group than in the MT-MVR group (99±24 min and 119±34 min, respectively) (P≤0.001). There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and hospitalization period. Postoperative blood loss was lower in the MT-MVR group (P≤0.001) than in the S-MVR group. There are no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications (superficial wound infection, stroke, delirium, pericardial tamponade, pleural puncture, acute kidney insufficiency, and implantation of pacemaker). The overall in-hospital mortality was 3.9% (P=0.6). CONCLUSION: The minimally invasive approach for RMS is feasible and has an excellent cosmetic effect without increasing the risk of surgical complications.

Minithoracotomy vs. conventional mitral valve surgery for rheumatic mitral valve stenosis: a single-center analysis of 128 patients

Abstract Objective: To compare the in-hospital outcomes of a right-sided anterolateral minithoracotomy with those of median sternotomy in patients who received a mitral valve replacement (MVR) because of rheumatic mitral valve stenosis (RMS). Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 128 patients (34% male) with RMS between 2011 and 2015. The median age was 53 years (45; 56). The mean ejection fraction was 58.4±6.3%. All the subjects were divided into two groups - Group 1 contained 78 patients who underwent MVR via minithoracotomy (MT-MVR), while Group 2 contained 50 patients who underwent MVR via median sternotomy (S-MVR). Results: In the MT-MVR group, a mechanical prosthesis was implanted in 72% of cases, while it was implanted in 90% of cases in the S-MVR group (P=0.01). The duration of myocardial ischemia was similar (MT-MVR, 77±24 min; S-MVR, 70±18 min) (P=0.09). However, the cardiopulmonary bypass time was lower in the S-MVR group than in the MT-MVR group (99±24 min and 119±34 min, respectively) (P≤0.001). There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and hospitalization period. Postoperative blood loss was lower in the MT-MVR group (P≤0.001) than in the S-MVR group. There are no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications (superficial wound infection, stroke, delirium, pericardial tamponade, pleural puncture, acute kidney insufficiency, and implantation of pacemaker). The overall in-hospital mortality was 3.9% (P=0.6) Conclusion: The minimally invasive approach for RMS is feasible and has an excellent cosmetic effect without increasing the risk of surgical complications.