Robotic repair of posterior mitral valve leaflet prolapse is as safe and effective as conventional approaches. Technical complexity and longer operative times for robotic repair are compensated for by lesser invasiveness and shorter hospital stay.

Importance The value of robotically assisted surgery for mitral valve disease is questioned because the high cost of care associated with robotic technology may outweigh its clinical benefits. Objective To investigate conditions under which benefits of robotic surgery mitigate high technology costs. Design Clinical cohort study comparing costs of robotic vs. three contemporaneous conventional surgical approaches for degenerative mitral disease. Surgery was performed from 2006–2011, and comparisons were based on intent-to-treat, with propensity-matching used to reduce selection bias. Setting Large multi-specialty academic medical center. Participants 1,290 patients aged 57±11 years, 27% women, underwent mitral repair for regurgitation from posterior leaflet prolapse. Robotic surgery was used in 473, complete sternotomy in 227, partial sternotomy in 349, and anterolateral thoracotomy in 241. Three propensity-matched groups were formed based on demographics, symptoms, cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, valve pathophysiology, and echocardiographic measurements: robotic vs. sternotomy (n=198 pairs) vs. partial sternotomy (n=293 pairs) vs. thoracotomy (n=224 pairs). Interventions Mitral valve repair. Main Outcome Measures Cost of care, expressed as robotic capital investment, maintenance, and direct technical hospital cost, and benefit of care, based on differences in recovery time. Results Median cost of care for robotically assisted surgery exceeded the cost of alternative approaches by 27% (−5%, 68%), 32% (−6%, 70%), and 21% (−2%, 54%) (median [15th, 85th percentiles]) for complete sternotomy, partial sternotomy, and anterolateral thoracotomy, respectively. Higher operative costs were partially offset by lower postoperative costs and earlier return to work: median 35 days for robotic surgery, 49 for complete sternotomy, 56 for partial sternotomy, and 42 for anterolateral thoracotomy. Resulting net differences in cost of robotic surgery vs. the three alternatives were 16% (−15%, 55%), 16% (−19%, 51%), and 15% (−7%, 49%), respectively. Beyond a volume threshold of 55–100 robotic cases per year, confidence limits for the cost of robotic surgery broadly overlapped those of conventional approaches. Conclusions In exchange for higher procedural costs, robotically assisted mitral valve surgery offers the clinical benefit of least invasive surgery, lowest postoperative cost, and fastest return to work. The value of robotically assisted surgery comparable to conventional approaches can only be realized in high-volume centers.

Severe refractory heart failure after transplantation is a rare catastrophic event for which MCS offers the possibility of recovery or bridge to retransplantation, particularly for patients with biventricular failure in the absence of rejection. Early retransplantation should be considered in patients who show no evidence of graft recovery on MCS.

No abstract

Background-Atrial fibrillation (AF) after cardiac surgery is a common marker of poor outcomes. Quantitative electrocardiographic (ECG) measurements may be valuable predictors of postoperative AF.