ABSTRACT
Background
Endoscopic mitral valve surgery (MVS) has evolved at specialized centers aiming to reduce surgical trauma and improve recovery. The aim of this study was to monitor the evolution and temporal changes of endoscopic MVS at our institution.
Methods
Between 2012 and 2022, a total of 1.037 consecutive patients underwent endoscopic MVS and were categorized into an initial- (2012-2017; n = 487) and a late-group (2018-2022; n = 550). Data was retrospectively analyzed.
Results
Patient age increased during the study period from 56.0 (47.0-64.2) to 61.0 (55.0-68.0) years (p trend = 0.0275). The prevalence of coronary artery disease (9.3% vs 17.1%; P <.001) and endocarditis (2.1% vs 6.0%; P =.0026) differed between groups. Median STS PROM score increased from 0.3 (0.3-0.5) to 0.4 (0.3-0.9) (p trend < 0.001). MV repair was performed in 92.7%. Concomitant procedures, eg, closure of left atrial appendage (21.0%), atrial ablation (19.2%) or tricuspid valve repair (6.7%) increased significantly over time (p trend < 0.01). Nevertheless, median bypass and cross-clamp times decreased (p trend < 0.001). Median postoperative ventilation time was 5.0 (3.3-7.0) hours and decreased during the study-period (p trend < 0.001). Length of intensive care unit and in-hospital stay were 2.0 (1.0-3.0) and 7.0 (6.0-9.0)days, respectively. At 30 days, overall mortality was 0.6% excluding patients with endocarditis. After 5 years re-operation rate was 2.5% and overall survival was 94.0%. During a maximum follow up of 11.2 years, reoperation rate was 5.0%, whereas overall survival was 88.5%.
Conclusions
In the present analysis, evolution of endoscopic MVS from isolated procedures in young, low-risk patients with simple MV pathology to combined procedures in older patients with complex MV disease, was demonstrated. Despite increasing surgical risk, complexity of MV disease as well as an increasing rate of concomitant procedures, perioperative outcome remained favorable over time, resulting in promising mid- to long-term results.
Graphical abstract
Background
Mitral regurgitation (MR) represents the second most common valvular heart disease in Europe and increases in prevalence with age. Conventional mitral valve surgery (MVS) via full-sternotomy, including central cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest, has been the gold-standard in the treatment of MR over decades and is supported by current guidelines Aiming at high-risk and inoperable patients, percutaneous transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) evolved as an alternative to surgery, mimicking the Alfieri double-orifice technique Although periprocedural complication rates after TEER are low, long-term durability, particularly for treatment of primary MR yields mixed results. ,,, In addition, endoscopic MVS developed as an alternative to full-sternotomy, , offering complete spectrum of mitral valve (MV) repair techniques specifically addressing all types of MR pathologies. ,,, Further than reduced surgical trauma, endoscopic MVS is associated with decreased need for transfusions, shorter postoperative ventilation times and in-hospital stay. ,,,,, Therefore, endoscopic MVS evolved at specialized centers, expanding from young, low-risk patients with isolated prolapse of the posterior mitral leaflet (PML), to treatment of older patients with mixed MV disease, concomitant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) and increased surgical risk. The aim of this study was to monitor the evolution and temporal changes of endoscopic MVS at our institution over the last decade.
Patients and methods
Ethical statement
This retrospective single-center study was established in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Medical Association (IRB# WF-208/20). Due to anonymous, retrospective study design, written informed patient consent was waived.
Patients
Inclusion criteria
All consecutive patients ( n = 1.037) receiving minimally-invasive MVS, via right-sided mini-incision using endoscopic guidance and visualization between 2012 and 2022 were retrospectively included in the registry. Indication for surgery followed current ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease Furthermore, decision for endoscopic MVS was based on local standard of care and interdisciplinary Heart Team discussion, including patient age, frailty, comorbidities, as well as echocardiographic and CT-imaging data. To illustrate temporal changes throughout the study period, patients were categorized and compared according to the year of surgery: initial-group (from 2012 until 2017; n = 487) vs late-group (from 2018 until 2022; n = 550) ( Figure 1 A).
(A) Study design. (B) Surgical set-up of endoscopic mitral valve surgery.
Exclusion criteria
Patients undergoing full-sternotomy due to unsuitability for an endoscopic approach (eg, severe chest deformities, prior right-sided thoracic surgery, etc.) according to local heart team decision, or concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, as well as aortic surgery were excluded. Furthermore, isolated tricuspid valve surgery (TVS) patients were excluded from the analysis.
Surgical setup
All procedures were performed under general anesthesia by a dedicated team of cardiac surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, and perfusionists according to institutional standards as described elsewhere Briefly, endoscopic MVS was performed via right anterolateral mini-incision under 3D endoscopic guidance. Surgical access was established via a limited skin incision (3 to 5 cm) entering the fourth (rarely due to anatomical reasons the fifth) intercostal space, using a nonrib spreading soft tissue retractor ( Figure 1 B). Furthermore, 3 < 1 cm incisions were made to introduce a camera for visualization in the same intercostal space as the incision, a MV retractor parasternal orthogonal to the MV, as well as a transthoracic aortic clamp. Operative visualization was provided using a 3D endoscope (Aesculap Einstein Vision, Tuttlingen, Germany). Endoscopic images were displayed in high definition on a large monitor and 3D glasses were worn. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was established via percutaneous or open cannulation of femoral or axillary arteries. Venous cannulation was performed using the femoral veins. A transthoracic aortic clamp, which was inserted 1 intercostal space above the original incision, was used in addition to antegrade Bretschneider or del Nido cardioplegia, which was administered into the aortic root, to obtain cardioplegic arrest. Exposure of the MV was performed using direct left atrial access, before standardized intraoperative examination was performed to determine the etiology of MR and define the surgical strategy. MVS and concomitant surgical procedures including atrial fibrillation (AFib) ablation (ie, mainly left-sided cryoablation including a box- and mitral isthmus lesion set), left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (using an intra-atrial suture or extra-atrial clip device) or TVS were performed according to local standard of care. During the procedure transesophageal echocardiography (TOE) was used to confirm indication for surgery and appropriate surgical results.
Study endpoints
The aim of this study was to monitor the evolution and temporal changes of endoscopic MVS at our institution. To that end perioperative data and follow-up were retrospectively analyzed.
Statistical analysis
Baseline, perioperative, and FU variables were retrospectively collected in an anonymized, standardized database. Continuous variables are shown as medians (25th percentile, 75th percentile) and compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test. Binary variables are shown as counts (frequencies) and compared using the χ2 test. For specific variables trend tests over operation year are calculated. For binary variables Cochran–Armitage test is used, whereas continuous variables are assessed by Jonckheere–Terpstra Test for ordered differences among classes. Event rate and survival curves are calculated with Kaplan–Meier estimator. Groups are compared using the log-rank test. Univariable Cox regression was conducted to identify patient characteristics associated with the occurrence of death or reoperation within 5 years. All variables with a P -value <.25 in univariable regression were chosen for further selection methods because of their relevance in the univariable model. Afterwards, a backward subset selection was performed where the chosen method selected the model based on Akaike Information Criteria (AIC). To prepare the subset selection, variables with high amount of missing values or high correlation were excluded, in order to ensure a valid selection for multivariable Cox regression. A P -value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed with R statistical software version 4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Results
Baseline characteristics including age, gender, comorbidities and surgical risk scores are presented in Table 1 . Median patient age (2012: 56.0 to 2022: 61.0 years; p trend = 0.03) increased significantly over time ( Figure 2 A). The prevalence of coronary artery disease (9.3% vs 17.1%; P <.001), previous malignancy (2.3% vs 9.5%; P <.001) and endocarditis (2.1% vs 6.0%; P =.0026), differ significantly between groups. Furthermore, a higher proportion of patients in the initial-group presented in NYHA class I (30.6% vs 19.3%; P <.001). Consequently, median STS PROM Score increased significantly from 0.3 (0.3-0.5) in 2012 to 0.4 (0.3-0.9) in 2022 (p trend < 0.001) ( Figure 2 A). Median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in the late-group ( P =.033), whereas right ventricular function remained similar between groups ( P =.40). The prevalence of primary MR with posterior prolapse or flail leaflet was 80.8% vs 76.7% ( P <.001). Of note, the rate of secondary MR due to restriction of the PML was increased in the late-group (6.0% vs 10.9%; P =.0075). Furthermore, TR ≥ 1 (62.5% vs 70.5%; P =.011) was more prevalent in the late group ( Table 2 ).
Table 1
Preoperative patient characteristics
| Variables | All patients ( n = 1,037) | Initial-period ( n = 487) | Late-period ( n = 550) | P -value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years, median (IQR) | 60.0 (53.0, 68.0) | 59.0 (52.0, 67.0) | 61.0 (54.0, 69.0) | .0022 |
| Male, n (%) | 651 (62.8) | 316 (64.9) | 335 (60.9) | .21 |
| BMI, kg/m², median (IQR) | 24.6 (22.3, 27.4) | 24.7 (22.4, 27.4) | 24.5 (22.3, 27.4) | .85 |
| STS PROM, %, median (IQR) | 0.4 (0.3, 0.7) | 0.4 (0.3, 0.6) | 0.4 (0.3, 0.8) | <.001 |
| Endocarditis, n (%) | 45 (4.3) | 12 (2.5) | 33 (6.0) | .0026 |
| Prev. malignancy, n (%) | 63 (6.1) | 11 (2.3) | 52 (9.5) | <.001 |
| Prev. stroke, n (%) | 51 (4.9) | 21 (4.3) | 30 (5.5) | .49 |
| Coronary artery disease, n (%) | 139 (13.5) | 45 (9.3) | 94 (17.1) | <.001 |
| COPD > GOLD class I, n (%) | 32 (3.1) | 15 (3.1) | 17 (3.1) | 1.00 |
| Diabetes, n (%) | 50 (4.8) | 23 (4.8) | 27 (4.9) | 1.00 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 462 (44.7) | 221 (45.7) | 241 (43.9) | .61 |
| Peripheral artery disease, n (%) | 29 (2.8) | 8 (1.7) | 21 (3.8) | .055 |
| Afib, n (%) | 334 (32.3) | 148 (30.6) | 186 (33.9) | .29 |
| NYHA < 2, n (%) | 239 (24.6) | 138 (30.6) | 101 (19.3) | <.001 |
| proBNP, pg/l, median (IQR) | 481.5 (136.4, 1,577.7) | 712.5 (145.5, 2,146.9) | 439.0 (136.4, 1,491.0) | .12 |
| Creatinin, mg/dl, median (IQR) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | .65 |
BMI, body mass index; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; GOLD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease; IQR, interquartile range.
(A) Evolution of age and STS PROM during the study period. (B). Prevalence of concomitant procedures during the study period.
Table 2
Preoperative echocardiographic characteristics
| Variables | All patients ( n = 1,037) | Initial-period ( n = 487) | Late-period ( n = 550) | P -value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LVEF, %, median (IQR) | 60.0 (56.0, 63.0) | 60.0 (60.0, 60.1) | 60.0 (55.0, 64.0) | .033 |
| LVEDD, mm, median (IQR) | 56.0 (51.0, 61.0) | 57.0 (53.0, 62.0) | 55.0 (50.0, 60.0) | <.001 |
| TAPSE, mm, median (IQR) | 23.0 (20.0, 26.0) | 23.5 (20.0, 26.0) | 23.0 (20.0, 26.0) | .40 |
| LA volume, ml, median (IQR) | 93.0 (73.0, 121.0) | 95.7 (73.0, 125.5) | 92.0 (73.0, 119.8) | .39 |
| sPAP, mmHg, median (IQR) | 32.0 (24.0, 43.0) | 33.0 (25.0, 44.0) | 31.0 (23.0, 42.0) | .074 |
| EROA, cm², median (IQR) | 0.5 (0.3, 0.8) | 0.4 (0.2, 0.7) | 0.5 (0.4, 0.9) | .0037 |
| Primary MR, n (%) | 830 (83.0) | 415 (88.3) | 415 (78.3) | <.001 |
| AML prolapse, n (%) | 221 (22.1) | 115 (24.6) | 106 (19.9) | .091 |
| PML prolapse, n (%) | 542 (54.1) | 303 (64.6) | 239 (44.9) | <.001 |
| AML flail leaflet, n (%) | 20 (2.0) | 7 (1.5) | 13 (2.4) | .39 |
| PML flail leaflet n (%) | 245 (24.5) | 76 (16.2) | 169 (31.8) | <.001 |
| AML restriction, n (%) | 15 (1.5) | 6 (1.3) | 9 (1.7) | .78 |
| PML restriction, n (%) | 86 (8.6) | 28 (6.0) | 58 (10.9) | .0075 |
| Max. MV PG, mmHg, median (IQR) | 8.0 (5.0, 12.0) | 8.0 (6.0, 13.0) | 8.0 (5.0, 12.0) | .16 |
| Median MV PG, mmHg, median (IQR) | 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) | 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) | 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) | .72 |
| TR ≥ 1, n (%) | 718 (69.2) | 324 (66.5) | 394 (71.6) | .011 |
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree