Scholarlink

Background <p>We investigated the international mini-mitral registry (MMIR) for differences in minimally-invasive access for surgery on the mitral and tricuspid valve. We compared direct vision with partially or fully endoscopic approaches.</p> Methods <p>From 2015 to 2021, 7,513 consecutive patients underwent mini-MVR ± TVR in 17 international Heart-Valve-Centers. Data were collected according to MVARC definitions and 6463 patients undergoing first time mitral with or without tricuspid valve surgery were analyzed. Uni- and multivariable regression analyzes were performed to compare the different approaches.</p> Results <p>Patients were 65 years (57% male) and oldest in the direct-vision group (<i>n</i> = 1594). Endoscopes (video-assisted: <i>n</i> = 2850, fully-endoscopic: <i>n</i> = 1963) were used in slightly more selected patients (less obesity, diabetes, dialysis, CAD, pulmonary hypertension, reduced LVEF and urgent status compared to direct vision). Robot was used in 56 cases (most selected, no mortality, not further analyzed). Fully-endoscopically, most cases were repairs, concomitant tricuspid surgery was lowest (13% vs. 20%) and both cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were longest (90&#xa0;min, IQR 71–113&#xa0;min). Cross-clamp times were shortest in the direct vision group (-20&#xa0;min). Technical success was high (above 96%), in-hospital mortality and stroke rates low and not significantly different between groups. Low output was highest with direct vision and acute kidney injury highest fully-endoscopically. However, this difference was not significant.</p> Conclusions <p>In this large registry, the type of minimally-invasive approach did not significantly affect outcome. It appears that fully endoscopic and robotic cases are used more selectively. Mastering both techniques may optimize patient care.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Endoscopic and direct vision approaches in minimally-invasive mitral and tricuspid valve surgery – insights from the mini-mitral registry

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月22日

查看全文
  • Torsten Doenst,
  • Paolo Berretta,
  • Tom C. Nguyen,
  • Nikolaos Bonaros,
  • Marc Gerdisch,
  • Mauro Rinaldi,
  • Joerg Kempfert,
  • Joseph Lamelas,
  • Frank Van Praet,
  • Tristan Yan,
  • Loris Salvador,
  • Antonios Pitsis,
  • Manuel Wilbring,
  • Davide Pacini,
  • Antonio Fiore,
  • Nguyen Hoang Dinh,
  • Pierluigi Stefano,
  • Hristo Kirov,
  • Marco Di Eusanio

摘要

Background

We investigated the international mini-mitral registry (MMIR) for differences in minimally-invasive access for surgery on the mitral and tricuspid valve. We compared direct vision with partially or fully endoscopic approaches.

Methods

From 2015 to 2021, 7,513 consecutive patients underwent mini-MVR ± TVR in 17 international Heart-Valve-Centers. Data were collected according to MVARC definitions and 6463 patients undergoing first time mitral with or without tricuspid valve surgery were analyzed. Uni- and multivariable regression analyzes were performed to compare the different approaches.

Results

Patients were 65 years (57% male) and oldest in the direct-vision group (n = 1594). Endoscopes (video-assisted: n = 2850, fully-endoscopic: n = 1963) were used in slightly more selected patients (less obesity, diabetes, dialysis, CAD, pulmonary hypertension, reduced LVEF and urgent status compared to direct vision). Robot was used in 56 cases (most selected, no mortality, not further analyzed). Fully-endoscopically, most cases were repairs, concomitant tricuspid surgery was lowest (13% vs. 20%) and both cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were longest (90 min, IQR 71–113 min). Cross-clamp times were shortest in the direct vision group (-20 min). Technical success was high (above 96%), in-hospital mortality and stroke rates low and not significantly different between groups. Low output was highest with direct vision and acute kidney injury highest fully-endoscopically. However, this difference was not significant.

Conclusions

In this large registry, the type of minimally-invasive approach did not significantly affect outcome. It appears that fully endoscopic and robotic cases are used more selectively. Mastering both techniques may optimize patient care.