Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Extracorporeal Circulation in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Valve Surgery

Abstract

Background Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MECC) technology was applied predominantly in coronary surgery. Data regarding the application of MECC in minimally invasive valve surgery are missing largely.

Patients and Methods Patients undergoing isolated minimally invasive mitral or aortic valve procedures were allocated either to conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) group (n = 63) or MECC group (n = 105), and their prospectively generated data were analyzed.

Results Demographic data were comparable between the groups regarding age (CECC vs. MECC: 71.0 ± 7.5 vs. 66.2 ± 10.1 years, p = 0.091) and logistic EuroSCORE I (6.2 ± 2.5 vs. 5.4 ± 3.0, p = 0.707). Hospital mortality was one patient in each group (1.6 vs. 1.0%, p = 0.688). The levels of leukocytes were lower in the MECC group (11.6 ± 3.2 vs. 9.4 ± 4.3 10⁹/L, p = 0.040). Levels of platelets (137.2 ± 45.5 vs. 152.4 ± 50.3 10⁹/L, p = 0.015) and hemoglobin (103.3 ± 11.3 vs. 107.3 ± 14.7 g/L, p = 0.017) were higher in the MECC group. Renal function was better preserved (creatinine: 1.1 ± 0.4 vs. 0.9 ± 0.2 mg/dL, p = 0.019). We were able to validate shorter time of postoperative ventilation (9.5 ± 15.1 vs. 6.3 ± 3.4 h, p = 0.054) as well as significantly shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (1.8 ± 1.3 vs. 1.2 ± 1.0 d, p = 0.005) for MECC patients. The course of C-reactive protein did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion We were able to prove the feasibility of MECC even in minimally invasive performed mitral and aortic valve procedures. In addition, the use of MECC provides decreased platelet consumption and less hemodilution. The use of MECC in these selected patients lead to a shorter ventilation time and ICU stay.

Keywords

aorta/aortic - cardiopulmonary bypass - cardiac valve surgery - minimally invasive surgery - mitral valve procedure - perfusion

Note

Data were presented in part at the 26th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Barcelona, Spain.

• References

• 1 Baumbach H, Rustenbach C, Michaelsen J , et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional extracorporeal circulation in minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2012; 15 (Suppl. 02) i-xxvii
• 2 Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS , et al. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg 1997; 226 (4) 421-426 , discussion 427–428
• 3 Woo YJ. Minimally invasive valve surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2009; 89 (4) 923-949 , x
• 4 Doty DB, Flores JH, Doty JR. Cardiac valve operations using a partial sternotomy (lower half) technique. J Card Surg 2000; 15 (1) 35-42
• 5 Lamelas J, Sarria A, Santana O, Pineda AM, Lamas GA. Outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery versus median sternotomy in patients age 75 years or greater. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 (1) 79-84
• 6 Svensson LG. Minimal-access “J” or “j” sternotomy for valvular, aortic, and coronary operations or reoperations. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 64 (5) 1501-1503
• 7 Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F , et al. Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81 (5) 1599-1604
• 8 Paparella D, Yau TM, Young E. Cardiopulmonary bypass induced inflammation: pathophysiology and treatment. An update. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002; 21 (2) 232-244
• 9 Remadi JP, Rakotoarivello Z, Marticho P , et al. Aortic valve replacement with the minimal extracorporeal circulation (Jostra MECC System) versus standard cardiopulmonary bypass: a randomized prospective trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004; 128 (3) 436-441
• 10 Biancari F, Rimpiläinen R. Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of miniaturised versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery. Heart 2009; 95 (12) 964-969
• 11 Wiesenack C, Liebold A, Philipp A , et al. Four years' experience with a miniaturized extracorporeal circulation system and its influence on clinical outcome. Artif Organs 2004; 28 (12) 1082-1088
• 12 Calafiore AM, Teodori G, Mezzetti A , et al. Intermittent antegrade warm blood cardioplegia. Ann Thorac Surg 1995; 59 (2) 398-402
• 13 Mohr FW, Onnasch JF, Falk V , et al. The evolution of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery– 2 year experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999; 15 (3) 233-238, discussion 238–239
• 14 Yilmaz A, Rehman A, Sonker U, Kloppenburg GT. Minimal access aortic valve replacement using a minimal extracorporeal circulatory system. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 87 (3) 720-725
• 15 Yilmaz A, Sjatskig J, van Boven WJ , et al. J-shaped versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement with minimal extracorporeal circuit. Scand Cardiovasc J 2011; 45 (6) 379-384