The Journal of heart valve disease · 2010
Mitral valve surgery: comparison of outcomes in matched sternotomy and port access groups.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ryan William H, Brinkman William T, Dewey Todd M, Mack Michael J, Prince Syma L, Herbert Morley A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The 30-day outcomes were compared between matched groups of patients undergoing mitral valve procedures through Port Access (femoral cannulation, percutaneous retrograde cardioplegia and aortic occlusion), and through a sternotomy.
METHODS: By using a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-certified, audited database, a total of 1108 patients was identified who were operated on between January 1996 and November 2008. A total of 608 mitral valve repair (MV-Rpr) patients (including 241 with Port Access procedures) and 500 mitral valve replacement (MVR) patients (including 45 with Port Access procedures) was included. Matching groups were created for 177 MV-Rpr patients (matched on preoperative cerebrovascular accident (CVA), previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and valve procedures, urgent operative status, mitral stenosis, heart failure, NYHA class IV, and age) and for MVR patients with 43 matches (matched for previous CABG surgery, operative status, NYHA class IV, and mitral insufficiency).
RESULTS: Patients with Port Access procedures for MV-Rpr had a shorter length of hospital stay (5.4 +/- 2.8 versus 7.3 +/- 5.8 days), less postoperative ventilator usage (8.4 +/- 36.0 versus 24.8 +/- 81.6 h) and a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (34.0 +/- 40.5 versus 81.7 +/- 133.8 h) when compared to sternotomy cases. Port Access also resulted in fewer patients requiring postoperative ventilation (50.3% versus 76.9%; p < 0.001) or reoperation for bleeding (2.3% versus 6.8%; p = 0.048). In MVR patients, Port Access use led to reductions in mortality (11.6% versus 0%; p = 0.021), ventilation time (13.8 +/- 40.3 versus 38.1 +/- 83.0 h), ICU stay (51.9 +/- 83.4 versus 152.4 +/- 125.0 h) and postoperative hospital stay (8.2 +/- 8.0 versus 11.0 +/- 8.6 days). In both groups, the cross-clamp time was longer with Port Access (107.7 +/- 26.8 versus 92.8 +/- 35.2 min for MV-Rpr; 130.2 +/- 44.2 versus 102.7 +/- 64.6 min for MVR).
CONCLUSION: The performance of mitral valve surgery through a Port Access approach led to a reduction in ICU time, ventilator time, and hospital stay when compared to sternotomy. No increase in morbidity was observed with Port Access compared to sternotomy.
METHODS: By using a Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-certified, audited database, a total of 1108 patients was identified who were operated on between January 1996 and November 2008. A total of 608 mitral valve repair (MV-Rpr) patients (including 241 with Port Access procedures) and 500 mitral valve replacement (MVR) patients (including 45 with Port Access procedures) was included. Matching groups were created for 177 MV-Rpr patients (matched on preoperative cerebrovascular accident (CVA), previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and valve procedures, urgent operative status, mitral stenosis, heart failure, NYHA class IV, and age) and for MVR patients with 43 matches (matched for previous CABG surgery, operative status, NYHA class IV, and mitral insufficiency).
RESULTS: Patients with Port Access procedures for MV-Rpr had a shorter length of hospital stay (5.4 +/- 2.8 versus 7.3 +/- 5.8 days), less postoperative ventilator usage (8.4 +/- 36.0 versus 24.8 +/- 81.6 h) and a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (34.0 +/- 40.5 versus 81.7 +/- 133.8 h) when compared to sternotomy cases. Port Access also resulted in fewer patients requiring postoperative ventilation (50.3% versus 76.9%; p < 0.001) or reoperation for bleeding (2.3% versus 6.8%; p = 0.048). In MVR patients, Port Access use led to reductions in mortality (11.6% versus 0%; p = 0.021), ventilation time (13.8 +/- 40.3 versus 38.1 +/- 83.0 h), ICU stay (51.9 +/- 83.4 versus 152.4 +/- 125.0 h) and postoperative hospital stay (8.2 +/- 8.0 versus 11.0 +/- 8.6 days). In both groups, the cross-clamp time was longer with Port Access (107.7 +/- 26.8 versus 92.8 +/- 35.2 min for MV-Rpr; 130.2 +/- 44.2 versus 102.7 +/- 64.6 min for MVR).
CONCLUSION: The performance of mitral valve surgery through a Port Access approach led to a reduction in ICU time, ventilator time, and hospital stay when compared to sternotomy. No increase in morbidity was observed with Port Access compared to sternotomy.