Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement in Obese Patients: A Propensity-Matched Study.

Federico Cammertoni, Piergiorgio Bruno, Natalia Pavone, Marialisa Nesta, Giovanni Alfonso Chiariello, Maria Grandinetti, Serena D'Avino, Valerio Sanesi, Denise D'Errico, Massimo Massetti
{"title":"Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement in Obese Patients: A Propensity-Matched Study.","authors":"Federico Cammertoni, Piergiorgio Bruno, Natalia Pavone, Marialisa Nesta, Giovanni Alfonso Chiariello, Maria Grandinetti, Serena D'Avino, Valerio Sanesi, Denise D'Errico, Massimo Massetti","doi":"10.21470/1678-9741-2023-0159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Obese patients are at risk of complications after cardiac surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive approach via upper sternotomy in this setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed 203 obese patients who underwent isolated, elective aortic valve replacement between January 2014 and January 2023 - 106 with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) and 97 with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed obtaining two balanced groups of 91 patients each.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 30-day mortality rate was comparable between groups (1.1% MIAVR vs. 0% CAVR, P=0.99). MIAVR patients had faster extubation than CAVR patients (6 ± 2 vs. 9 ± 2 hours, P<0.01). Continuous positive airway pressure therapy was less common in the MIAVR than in the CAVR group (3.3% vs. 13.2%, P=0.03). Other postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Intensive care unit stay (1.8 ± 1.2 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4 days, P<0.01), but not hospital stay (6.7 ± 2.1 vs. 7.2 ± 1.9 days, P=0.09), was shorter for MIAVR than for CAVR patients. Follow-up survival was comparable (logrank P-value = 0.58).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MIAVR via upper sternotomy has been shown to be a safe and effective option for obese patients. Respiratory outcome was promising with shorter mechanical ventilation time and reduced need for post-extubation support. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was reduced. These advantages might be important for the obese patient to whom minimally invasive surgery should not be denied.</p>","PeriodicalId":72457,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10903361/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2023-0159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Obese patients are at risk of complications after cardiac surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive approach via upper sternotomy in this setting.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 203 obese patients who underwent isolated, elective aortic valve replacement between January 2014 and January 2023 - 106 with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) and 97 with conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR). To account for baseline differences, a propensity-matching analysis was performed obtaining two balanced groups of 91 patients each.

Results: The 30-day mortality rate was comparable between groups (1.1% MIAVR vs. 0% CAVR, P=0.99). MIAVR patients had faster extubation than CAVR patients (6 ± 2 vs. 9 ± 2 hours, P<0.01). Continuous positive airway pressure therapy was less common in the MIAVR than in the CAVR group (3.3% vs. 13.2%, P=0.03). Other postoperative complications did not differ significantly. Intensive care unit stay (1.8 ± 1.2 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4 days, P<0.01), but not hospital stay (6.7 ± 2.1 vs. 7.2 ± 1.9 days, P=0.09), was shorter for MIAVR than for CAVR patients. Follow-up survival was comparable (logrank P-value = 0.58).

Conclusion: MIAVR via upper sternotomy has been shown to be a safe and effective option for obese patients. Respiratory outcome was promising with shorter mechanical ventilation time and reduced need for post-extubation support. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was reduced. These advantages might be important for the obese patient to whom minimally invasive surgery should not be denied.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肥胖患者微创主动脉瓣置换术的疗效:倾向匹配研究
导言肥胖患者在心脏手术后面临并发症风险。本研究旨在探讨在这种情况下通过胸骨上切口进行微创手术的安全性和有效性:我们对 2014 年 1 月至 2023 年 1 月期间接受孤立、择期主动脉瓣置换术的 203 例肥胖患者进行了回顾性研究,其中 106 例接受了微创主动脉瓣置换术(MIAVR),97 例接受了传统主动脉瓣置换术(CAVR)。为考虑基线差异,进行了倾向匹配分析,获得了两组各 91 名患者的平衡组:结果:两组患者的 30 天死亡率相当(MIAVR 为 1.1%,CAVR 为 0%,P=0.99)。MIAVR患者的拔管时间快于CAVR患者(6±2小时对9±2小时,P=0.99):经胸骨上切口进行MIAVR已被证明是肥胖患者安全有效的选择。呼吸效果良好,机械通气时间缩短,拔管后支持需求减少。重症监护室的住院时间也缩短了。这些优点对于肥胖患者来说可能很重要,因为他们不应拒绝微创手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Usefulness of Microcirculatory Assessment After Cardiac Surgery: Illustrative Case Report. Risk Model for Laryngeal Complications Prediction in Chinese PatientGBVs After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Artificial Intelligence in the Hands of Perfusionists: Revolutionizing Cardiopulmonary Bypass. Assessment of EuroSCORE II and STS Score Performance and the Impact of Surgical Urgency in Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery at a Referral Center in São Paulo, Brazil. Comparison of the Effect of Pump Flow Type (Pulsatile or Non-Pulsatile) on Postoperative Neurocognitive Functions in Coronary Artery Surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1