No abstract

No abstract

Objective The purpose of this consensus conference was to deliberate the evidence regarding whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery via thoracotomy improves clinical and resource outcomes compared with conventional open mitral valve surgery via median sternotomy in adults who require surgical intervention for mitral valve disease. Methods Before the consensus conference, the consensus panel reviewed the best available evidence up to March 2010, whereby systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized trials were considered in descending order of validity and importance. The accompanying meta-analysis article in this issue of the Journal provides the systematic review of the evidence. Based on this systematic review, evidence-based statements were created for pre-specified clinical questions, and consensus processes were used to derive recommendations. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology system was used to label the level of evidence and class of each recommendation. Results and Conclusions Considering the underlying level of evidence, and notwithstanding the limitations of the evidence base (retrospective studies with important differences in baseline patient characteristics, which may produce bias in results of the evidence syntheses), the consensus panel provided the following evidence-based statements and overall recommendation: In patients with mitral valve disease, minimally invasive surgery may be an alternative to conventional mitral valve surgery (Class IIb), given that there was comparable short-term and long-term mortality (level B), comparable in-hospital morbidity (renal, pulmonary, cardiac complications, pain perception, and readmissions) (level B), reduced sternal complications, transfusions, postoperative atrial fibrillation, duration of ventilation, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay (level B). However, this should be considered against the increased risk of stroke (2.1% vs 1.2%) (level B), aortic dissection (0.2% vs 0%) (level B), phrenic nerve palsy (3% vs 0%) (level B), groin infections/complications (2% vs 0%) (level B), and, prolonged cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and procedure time (level B). The available evidence consists almost entirely of observational studies and must not be considered definitive until future adequately controlled randomized trials further address the risk of stroke, aortic complications, phrenic nerve complications, pain, long-term survival, need for reintervention, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness.

Objective This meta-analysis sought to determine whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVS) improves clinical outcomes and resource utilization compared with conventional open mitral valve surgery (conv-MVS) in patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement. Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CTSnet, and databases of abstracts was undertaken to identify all randomized and nonrandomized studies up to March 2010 of mini-MVS through thoracotomy versus conv-MVS through median sternotomy for mitral valve repair or replacement. Outcomes of interest included death, stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic dissection, need for reintervention, and any other reported clinically relevant outcomes or indicator of resource utilization. Relative risk and weighted mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were analyzed as appropriate using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistic. Results Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (two randomized controlled trials and 33 nonrandomized studies). The mortality rate after mini-MVS versus conv-MVS was similar at 30 days (1.2% vs 1.5%), 1 year (0.9% vs 1.3%), 3 years (0.5% vs 0.5%), and 9 years (0% vs 3.7%). A number of clinical outcomes were significantly improved with mini-MVS versus conv-MVS including atrial fibrillation (18% vs 22%), chest tube drainage (578 vs 871 mL), transfusions, sternal infection (0.04% vs 0.27%), time to return to normal activity, and patient scar satisfaction. However, the 30-day risk of stroke (2.1% vs 1.2%), aortic dissection/injury (0.2% vs 0%), groin infection (2% vs 0%), and phrenic nerve palsy (3% vs 0%) were significantly increased for mini-MVS versus conv-MVS. Other clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and procedure time were significantly increased with mini-MVS; however, ventilation time and length of stay in intensive care unit and hospital were reduced. Conclusions Current evidence suggests that mini-MVS maybe associated with decreased bleeding, blood product transfusion, atrial fibrillation, sternal wound infection, scar dissatisfaction, ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and reduced time to return to normal activity, without detected adverse impact on long-term need for valvular reintervention and survival beyond 1 year. However, these potential benefits for mini-MVS may come with an increased risk of stroke, aortic dissection or aortic injury, phrenic nerve palsy, groin infections/complications, and increased cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and procedure time. Available evidence is largely limited to retrospective comparisons of small cohorts comparing mini-MVS versus conv-MVS that provide only short-term outcomes. Given these limitations, randomized controlled trials with adequate power and duration of follow-up to measure clinically relevant outcomes are recommended to determine the balance of benefits and risks.

No abstract