Mitral valve surgery after failed MitraClip-Operation for the inoperable?

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous edge-to-edge mitral valve repair technique (MitraClip) is a widely used treatment for mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients assessed with high surgical risk or inoperability. Only limited experiences with this highest-risk patient population exist. Procedural failure for MitraClip or recurrent MR is a strong predictor of 1-year mortality. Open mitral valve surgery constitutes the last bailout for patients within this cohort. METHODS: This retrospective single-center cohort study analyzed 17 mitral valve surgery patients after failed MitraClip. We, therefore, analyzed a high-risk patient population (EuroSCORE II = 10 ± 2.0) with persistent mitral valve regurgitation, which was mainly caused by detachment or dislocation of the MitraClip. RESULTS: Symptomatic patients with failed MitraClip need a convenient operation (mean time to mitral valve surgery = 23 ± 44 days). The patient's collective showed many complex reoperations with the need for concomitant surgery. Considering the high-risk patient population, we showed an average 30-day all-cause mortality (18%, n = 3) accompanied by typical postoperative complications related to prolonged mechanical ventilation (44 ± 48 h) and ICU stay (11 ± 11 days), reflecting high-risk patients. Further, excellent valve-related outcomes were shown regarding adverse cardiac events (valve-related mortality 6%, n = 1) and postoperative echocardiographic results (moderate or severe paravalvular leak 6%, n = 1). CONCLUSION: Failure of MitraClip represents a challenging situation limited by high-risk profiles of patients and limits the possibility of surgical valve repair, shown by a high rate of mitral valve replacement (94%, n = 16). Secondary surgery was associated with moderate 30-day and postdischarge outcomes. Therefore, a careful evaluation of patients undergoing MitraClip is of paramount importance.

Comparison of robotic and conventional sternotomy in redo mitral valve surgery.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Redo operation for mitral valve surgery carries higher risks than first time cardiac surgery. The adhesion between sternum and heart, and also the complexity of second time operation make the redo operation more difficult. The robotic surgery carries some benefit in terms of magnification, assisted by the scope view and precise movement of the instruments. We compared the results of our robotic redo mitral valve surgeries with those of conventional re-sternotomy. METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent redo mitral valve surgeries between 2012 and 2019 at our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, patients' medical histories, presenting symptoms, image analyses, echocardiogram data, operative procedures and postoperative clinical outcomes were collected through chart review. RESULTS: A total of 67 redo mitral valve surgeries, including 23 robotic and 44 re-sternotomy procedures were performed. There were no differences in age, previous operation times, and intervals to previous surgery. Comorbidities of both groups were similar. There was no surgical mortality in the robotic group, and it was 9.0% in the re-sternotomy group (p = 0.287). Operation time was shorter in the robotic group (176 vs. 321 min; robotic vs. re-sternotomy, p＝0.0279). Blood transfusion was lower in the robotic group (1 vs. 2 units; robotic vs. re-sternotomy, p = 0.01189). The ventilation time, ICU stay time, and recheck bleeding rate were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In select patients, robotic redo mitral valve surgery is safe and feasible. It could offer low operative mortality. It is associated with shorter operative times, than re-sternotomy and provides equal immediate operative results.

Two Cases of Minimally Invasive Right Thoracotomy Approach and Microscope-Assisted Surgery for Mitral Re-Operation; Mechanical Valve Dysfunction in the Late Operative Period / 日本心臓血管外科学会雑誌

Case 1 of stuck valve was an 84 year old man, 25 years after mitral valve replacement (MVR) using a mechanical valve. Case 2 was a 67 year old woman, 18 years after the previous operation. These patients underwent re-do replacement of the prosthesis with a minimally invasive right thoracotomy approach using a microscope. Re-do cardiac surgery is commonly regarded high risk on account of difficulty in peeling the adhension, risk of injury to the heart, lung or large vessels, longer operation time, greater amount of transfusion, higher invasion and longer admission. In both cases however, because of microscope-assist and right thoracotomy MICS technique, we safely and successfully completed the operation without any unplanned troubles. We finally had a good course with a short admission, no perioperative transfusion or no perioperative complication.