The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2017
Early results of robotically assisted mitral valve surgery: Analysis of the first 1000 cases.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Gillinov A Marc, Mihaljevic Tomislav, Javadikasgari Hoda, Suri Rakesh M, Mick Stephanie L, Navia José L, Desai Milind Y, Bonatti Johannes, Khosravi Mitra, Idrees Jay J, Lowry Ashley M, Blackstone Eugene H, Svensson Lars G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess the technical and process improvement and clinical outcomes of robotic mitral valve surgery by examining the first 1000 cases performed in a tertiary care center.
METHODS: We reviewed the first 1000 patients (mean age, 56 ± 10 years) undergoing robotic primary mitral valve surgery, including concomitant procedures (n = 185), from January 2006 to November 2013. Mitral valve disease cause was degenerative (n = 960, 96%), endocarditis (n = 26, 2.6%), rheumatic (n = 10, 1.0%), ischemic (n = 3, 0.3%), and fibroelastoma (n = 1, 0.1%). All procedures were performed via right chest access with femoral perfusion for cardiopulmonary bypass.
RESULTS: Mitral valve repair was attempted in 997 patients (2 planned replacements and 1 resection of fibroelastoma), 992 (99.5%) of whom underwent valve repair, and 5 (0.5%) of whom underwent valve replacement. Intraoperative postrepair echocardiography showed that 99.7% of patients receiving repair (989/992) left the operating room with no or mild mitral regurgitation, and predischarge echocardiography showed that mitral regurgitation remained mild or less in 97.9% of patients (915/935). There was 1 hospital death (0.1%), and 14 patients (1.4%) experienced a stroke; stroke risk declined from 2% in the first 500 patients to 0.8% in the second 500 patients. Over the course of the experience, myocardial ischemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times (P < .0001), transfusion (P = .003), and intensive care unit and postoperative lengths of stay (P < .05) decreased.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic mitral valve surgery is associated with a high likelihood of valve repair and low operative mortality and morbidity. The combination of algorithm-driven patient selection and increased experience enhanced clinical outcomes and procedural efficiency.
METHODS: We reviewed the first 1000 patients (mean age, 56 ± 10 years) undergoing robotic primary mitral valve surgery, including concomitant procedures (n = 185), from January 2006 to November 2013. Mitral valve disease cause was degenerative (n = 960, 96%), endocarditis (n = 26, 2.6%), rheumatic (n = 10, 1.0%), ischemic (n = 3, 0.3%), and fibroelastoma (n = 1, 0.1%). All procedures were performed via right chest access with femoral perfusion for cardiopulmonary bypass.
RESULTS: Mitral valve repair was attempted in 997 patients (2 planned replacements and 1 resection of fibroelastoma), 992 (99.5%) of whom underwent valve repair, and 5 (0.5%) of whom underwent valve replacement. Intraoperative postrepair echocardiography showed that 99.7% of patients receiving repair (989/992) left the operating room with no or mild mitral regurgitation, and predischarge echocardiography showed that mitral regurgitation remained mild or less in 97.9% of patients (915/935). There was 1 hospital death (0.1%), and 14 patients (1.4%) experienced a stroke; stroke risk declined from 2% in the first 500 patients to 0.8% in the second 500 patients. Over the course of the experience, myocardial ischemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times (P < .0001), transfusion (P = .003), and intensive care unit and postoperative lengths of stay (P < .05) decreased.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic mitral valve surgery is associated with a high likelihood of valve repair and low operative mortality and morbidity. The combination of algorithm-driven patient selection and increased experience enhanced clinical outcomes and procedural efficiency.