Bhargavi Desai

Results of 141 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Tricuspid Valve Operations: An 11-Year Experience

BACKGROUND Reports of minimally invasive tricuspid valve operations are rare. We reviewed our experience and results of tricuspid valve operation using mini-thoracotomy during an 11-year period. METHODS Consecutive patients (n = 141) undergoing tricuspid valve operation using mini-thoracotomy were retrospectively analyzed. Access was through a 6-cm right thoracotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass was instituted by means of the femoral artery (n = 16) or ascending aorta (n = 125) with augmented venous return. In most cases, vacuum assist without caval occlusion and snaring the cavae was used to minimize mediastinal dissection. In all cases, the tricuspid valve operation was done with the heart unclamped, and the heart either beating or fibrillating. RESULTS Seventy-three percent (103 of 141 patients) of the patients underwent combined mitral and tricuspid valve operations. The tricuspid valve was repaired instead of being replaced in 61% (86 of 141 patients). Previous sternotomy was present in 49% (69 of 141 patients). The average patient age was 64 years. Conversion rate to median sternotomy was only 3% (4 of 141 patients). The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 216 minutes. Thirty-day mortality was 2.1% (3 of 141 patients). Stroke occurred in 2.8% (4 of 141 patients), and reexploration for bleeding occurred in 5.6% (8 of 141 patients). The stroke rate was 3 of 16 patients (18.8%) using mini-thoracotomy through femoral cannulation versus 1 of 125 patients (0.8%) through aortic cannulation (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS In this largest reported series of patients undergoing tricuspid valve operation, mini-thoracotomy provides excellent short-term morbidity and mortality in these high-risk patients while avoiding redo sternotomy with a low conversion rate. Mini-thoracotomy with aortic cannulation is an attractive alternative approach to the tricuspid valve, particularly in patients with previous sternotomy.

Minimally Invasive Edge-to-Edge Mitral Repair With or Without Artificial Chordae

BACKGROUND This study aims to analyze the midterm outcomes of minimally invasive edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (MVR) with artificial chords (CHORD) or without artificial chords (noCHORD) in patients with mitral regurgitation (MR). METHODS Records of all patients undergoing edge-to-edge MVR through minithoracotomy at a single institution over a 7-year period were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS A total of 186 patients underwent edge-to-edge MVR through minithoracotomy. Disease etiology was posterior prolapse in 73 (39%) and bileaflet prolapse in 77 (41%). Edge-to-edge sutures were used at A1-P1 in 20 patients (11%), A2-P2 in 136 (73%), and A3-P3 in 30 (16%). Annuloplasty rings were placed in 184 patients (99%), with a mean size of 36±5 mm. Mean follow-up was 2 years (range, 0 to 6), with mean mitral gradient 4±2 mm Hg, MR mild or less in 179 of 186 (96%), 4 (2%) late reoperations, and 1 (0.5%) late death. The CHORD patients (n=71) were more likely than the noCHORD patients (n=115) to have extensive posterior leaflet pathology (p<0.01), had longer clamp and pump times (p<0.01) and were less likely to need leaflet resection (p=0.002), but had similar postoperative courses. At 3 years, freedom from moderate MR was less in CHORD versus noCHORD patients (88±6 versus 100%, p=0.001), but freedom from reoperation was similar (96%±3% versus 99%±1%, p=not significant). CONCLUSIONS Early results suggest that edge-to-edge MVR can be safe and effective in patients with mitral regurgitation. Edge-to-edge MVR combined with artificial chordae may be useful in selected patients, but with some risk of recurrent moderate MR.

Transaortic endoclamp for mitral valve operation through right minithoracotomy in 369 patients.

Objective:The effects and benefits of a transaortic endoclamp for mitral valve operation through right minithoracotomy have not been established. Methods:The records were examined in 671 patients undergoing mitral valve operation using aortic cannulation through a 6-cm right minithoracotomy in the fourth intercostal space. The ascending aorta was cannulated with a 24-Fr cannula through a 12-mm port in the first intercostal space. The experience from 1998 to 2006 with aortic endoclamping (group A, N = 436) was compared with the experience from 2006 to 2009 with external aortic clamping (group B, N = 235). Aortic endoclamping was achieved with a 30 mL endoclamp introduced through the aortic cannula into the ascending aorta to provide aortic endoclamping, anterograde cardioplegia, and root venting. Percutaneous femoral venous cannulation was used. Results:Group A and group B had similar demographics. Endoclamp availability (group A) resulted in significantly less fibrillatory arrest (no clamping) in 67 of 436 (15%) versus 104 of 235 (44%) patients in group B (P = 0.001). In patients with aortic clamping, endoclamp (group A) versus external clamp (group B) was not a determinant of clamp time or pump time. Hospital and late outcomes were not different between groups. No patient complications could be attributed to the endoclamp. Conclusions:Aortic endoclamping requires no more clamp or pump time than external clamping and can provide a more bloodless field than ventricular fibrillation without obstructing hardware. Aortic endoclamping is a safe alternative for mitral surgery through right minithoracotomy.

Comparison of need for operative therapy in patients with mitral valve prolapse involving both leaflets versus posterior leaflet only.

Mitral valve prolapse may involve 1 leaflet or 2 leaflets, yet management guidelines do not differentiate posterior leaflet (PML) from bileaflet (BML) prolapse. We hypothesized that patients with BML have a prolonged natural history with more severe atrial and ventricular enlargement but less severe mitral regurgitation (MR) compared to patients with PML. Patients with mitral valve prolapse undergoing mitral repair were identified and preoperative characteristics were recorded. Patients with predominant PML prolapse (n = 304) versus BML prolapse (n = 131) were identified based on preoperative echocardiographic and intraoperative findings. Timing of operation was based on standard guidelines. Despite being equally symptomatic, patients with BML differed significantly from those with PML in being younger (54 vs 60 years, p <0.0001), more likely to be women (51% vs 24%, p <0.0001), and having a larger valve (37 vs 32 mm, p <0.0001). Despite similar cardiac function and dimensions, patients with BML had less severe MR (24% vs 13% with <4+ MR, p = 0.01) and less severe pulmonary hypertension (14% vs 31%, p <0.0001) at time of operation. In conclusion, patients with BML often meet indications for mitral valve repair with similar cardiac enlargement but less MR than patients with PML prolapse. Patients with BML prolapse may benefit from timing mitral repair based more on symptomatic 3+ MR or cardiac enlargement and less on presence of severe MR.