Purpose:
Minimally-invasive access has become routine for mitral and tricuspid valve surgery. We assessed the type of valve exposure (direct vision, video-assisted, fully endoscopic or robotic) and compared pre-operative characteristics and post-operative outcomes of a large cohort of patients (international Mini-Mitral Registry) undergoing mitral and tricuspid valve interventions.
Methods:
From 2015-2021, 7,513 consecutive patients underwent mini-MVR±TVR in 17 international Heart-Valve-Centres. Data were collected according to MVARC definitions and 6463 patients undergoing first time mitral with or without tricuspid valve surgery were analysed. Uni- and multivariable regression analyses were performed to compare the different approaches. The table shows group sizes and main outcomes.
Results:
All patients were on average 65 years (57% male) with a Median EuroSCORE II of 1.3% (IQR: 0.80-2.63). Endoscopes and specifically the robot were used in selected patients with lower risk profile compared with direct vision (direct vision pts were older, with more comorbitities). The number of robotic cases was miniscule (0.9%) and patients were lowest risk. Concomitant tricuspid repair was performed more using direct vision or video-assisted. Operative times were shortest with direct vision. Main outcomes were similar (mortality, stroke, AKI) with varying individual endpoints (Table 1). On adjusted analysis (with "video-assisted” set as the reference approach), direct vision appeared as protective against long ventilation and wound complications and as risk factor for low cardiac output and longer length of stay. Fully endoscopic approach did not significantly affect any of the outcomes.
Conclusions:
Direct vision in minimal-access mitral plus/minus tricuspid valve surgery is the preferred choice for more complex cases, while endoscope and robot are used more selectively. Mastering both techniques may optimize patient care.
Table 1: Demographics and Outcomes
| |
Video assisted
(n= 2850)
N (%) |
Direct-vision
(n=1594)
n (%) |
Fully endoscopic
(n=1963)
n (%) |
Robotic
(n=56)
n (%) |
P value |
| Male |
1619 (57.1) |
918 (57.6) |
1210 (61.6) |
39 (69.6) |
0.003 |
| Age, median (IQR) |
64 (53–72) |
66 (57-74) |
64 (53-73) |
60 (52-68) |
<0.001 |
| NYHA III-IV |
1227 (43.3) |
689 (51.3) |
875 (44.8) |
12 (21.4) |
<0.001 |
| MV regurgitation (moderate-severe) |
2685 (94.3) |
1428 (89.6) |
1896 (96.6) |
56 (100) |
<0.001 |
| Tricuspid regurgitation (moderate-severe) |
763 (27.3) |
374 (23.6) |
502 (25.6) |
3 (5.4) |
<0.001 |
| LVEF<50% |
450 (16.0) |
339 (22) |
264 (13.5) |
7 (12.5) |
<0.001 |
| ES II, median (IQR) |
1.1 (0.7-1.9) |
1.5 (0.8-2.8) |
1.2 (0.8-2.2) |
1.6 (1.3-2.2) |
<0.001 |
| Mitral valve repair |
2141 (75.1) |
1209 (75.8) |
1727 (88) |
51 (91.1) |
|
| Mitral valve replacement |
667 (23.4) |
369 (23.1) |
222 (11.3) |
5 (8.9) |
|
| Concomitant Tricuspid surgery |
399 (20) |
342 (21.5) |
259 (13.3) |
2 (3.6) |
<0.001 |
| CPB time (minutes), median (IQR) |
130 (98-170) |
120 (98.8-145.3) |
145 (119-182) |
129 (99-147) |
<0.001 |
| X-Clamp time (minutes), median (IQR) |
87 (65-113) |
65 (52-84) |
90 (71-113) |
183 (147-211) |
<0.001 |
| Technical success |
2653 (96.2) |
1365 (99.3) |
1880 (97.6) |
56 (100) |
<0.001 |
| In-hospital mortality |
34 (1.2) |
22 (1.4) |
26 (1.3) |
- |
0.8 |
| 30-day mortality |
38 (1.9) |
27 (2.2) |
29 (1.7) |
- |
0.5 |
| Stroke |
40 (1.4) |
16 (1) |
22 (1.1) |
- |
0.5 |
| Intubation time (hours), median (IQR) |
9.4 (6-14) |
5 (3-8) |
7.7 (5-13) |
1 (0-6) |
<0.001 |
| Low cardiac output |
88 (3.2) |
83 (5.6) |
47 (2.4) |
4 (7.4) |
<0.001 |
| Acute kidney injury |
147 (5.2) |
89 (6.5) |
109 (7.2) |
3 (5.6) |
0.06 |
