Long-term outcomes of minimally invasive concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve surgery with surgical ablation.

0 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1093/icvts/ivae146
Sungsil Yoon, Kitae Kim, Jae Suk Yoo, Joon Bum Kim, Cheol Hyun Chung, Sung-Ho Jung
{"title":"Long-term outcomes of minimally invasive concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve surgery with surgical ablation.","authors":"Sungsil Yoon, Kitae Kim, Jae Suk Yoo, Joon Bum Kim, Cheol Hyun Chung, Sung-Ho Jung","doi":"10.1093/icvts/ivae146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We compared the outcomes of a right mini-thoracotomy (RMT) versus those of a sternotomy for concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve surgery and surgical ablation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed patients who underwent concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve surgery and surgical ablation at a single institution (mean follow-up: 7 years) after propensity score matching. The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause death, composite major adverse events (including stroke, reoperation, readmission, permanent pacemaker insertion) and recurrence of atrial fibrillation (A-fib). A subgroup analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 797 procedures (mean age: 61.6 years; RMT: 45.2%; female: 66.5%; mitral valve repair: 33.6%) were done; 267 pairs were matched. The 5- and 10-year overall survival in the matched cohort was 92.7% and 86.9% for the RMT group and 92.1% and 83.1% for the sternotomy group (P = 0.879). Significant differences were not observed in major adverse events (P = 0.273; hazard ratio: 0.76) and A-fib recurrence (P = 0.080; hazard ratio: 0.72). The RMT group had lower rates of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (P = 0.019) and acute renal failure (P = 0.003). Atrial fibrillation high-risk factors (including long-standing A-fib, enlarged left atrium, old age) exhibited significant interactions (P for interaction = 0.002) with the approach regarding A-fib recurrence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, an RMT exhibited no significant differences in long-term outcomes compared to a sternotomy, but it could remain a clinically reasonable option. Patients with a high risk of A-fib may have favourable ablation outcomes with a sternotomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":73406,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11392673/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivae146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We compared the outcomes of a right mini-thoracotomy (RMT) versus those of a sternotomy for concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve surgery and surgical ablation.

Methods: We analysed patients who underwent concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve surgery and surgical ablation at a single institution (mean follow-up: 7 years) after propensity score matching. The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause death, composite major adverse events (including stroke, reoperation, readmission, permanent pacemaker insertion) and recurrence of atrial fibrillation (A-fib). A subgroup analysis was performed.

Results: A total of 797 procedures (mean age: 61.6 years; RMT: 45.2%; female: 66.5%; mitral valve repair: 33.6%) were done; 267 pairs were matched. The 5- and 10-year overall survival in the matched cohort was 92.7% and 86.9% for the RMT group and 92.1% and 83.1% for the sternotomy group (P = 0.879). Significant differences were not observed in major adverse events (P = 0.273; hazard ratio: 0.76) and A-fib recurrence (P = 0.080; hazard ratio: 0.72). The RMT group had lower rates of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (P = 0.019) and acute renal failure (P = 0.003). Atrial fibrillation high-risk factors (including long-standing A-fib, enlarged left atrium, old age) exhibited significant interactions (P for interaction = 0.002) with the approach regarding A-fib recurrence.

Conclusions: In this study, an RMT exhibited no significant differences in long-term outcomes compared to a sternotomy, but it could remain a clinically reasonable option. Patients with a high risk of A-fib may have favourable ablation outcomes with a sternotomy.

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
二尖瓣和三尖瓣同期微创手术与手术消融的长期疗效。
目的我们比较了二尖瓣和三尖瓣同时手术和手术消融时右小开胸(mini-thoracotomy)与胸骨切开术的结果:我们分析了在单一机构接受二尖瓣和三尖瓣同期手术和手术消融的患者(平均随访时间:7 年),并进行了倾向评分匹配。主要和次要结果为全因死亡、复合主要不良事件(包括中风、再次手术、再次入院、植入永久起搏器)和心房颤动复发。进行了分组分析:33.6%),267对进行了配对。配对队列的5年和10年总生存率分别为:右小胸切口组92.7%和86.9%,胸骨切开组92.1%和83.1%(P = 0.879)。在主要不良事件(p = 0.273,危险比:0.76)和心房颤动复发(p = 0.080,危险比:0.72)方面未观察到显著差异。右小胸廓切开术组术后低心排血量综合征(p = 0.019)和急性肾衰竭(p = 0.003)发生率较低。心房颤动高危因素(包括长期存在的心房颤动、左心房扩大、高龄)与心房颤动复发的方法有显著的交互作用(交互作用的 p = 0.002):结论:在本研究中,与胸骨切开术相比,右小胸廓切开术在长期预后方面无明显差异,但在临床上仍是一种合理的选择。具有心房颤动高危因素的患者采用胸骨切开术可能会获得较好的消融效果。
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
Return to work after parenting in thoracic surgery: a call to action. Value of observational studies in the outcome evaluation of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement. Prosthesis selection for reconstruction of superior vena cava: comparison of midterm patency rates. Prophylactic ablation during cardiac surgery in patients without atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. A case of superior trunk brachial plexus injury after right mini-thoracotomy mitral valve repair.
×
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