Phillip G. Rowse MD , Yazan AlJamal MBBS , Richard C. Daly MD , Austin Todd MS , Arman Arghami MD, MPH , Juan A. Crestanello MD , Joseph A. Dearani MD
{"title":"Is concomitant tricuspid valve repair in patients undergoing robotic mitral valve repair safe and effective?","authors":"Phillip G. Rowse MD , Yazan AlJamal MBBS , Richard C. Daly MD , Austin Todd MS , Arman Arghami MD, MPH , Juan A. Crestanello MD , Joseph A. Dearani MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.09.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Robotic-assisted mitral valve repair (MVr) is a well-established procedure for management of degenerative mitral valve disease. Limited data regarding concomitant robotic-assisted tricuspid valve repair (TVr) is available. This review investigates prevalence and outcomes of concomitant robotic-assisted mitral and tricuspid valve repair.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>From 2014 to 2022, 839 patients underwent robotic-assisted MVr, including 76 patients with moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation and/or tricuspid annular dilatation ≥40 mm. Among the 76 patients, 19 (25%) underwent isolated MVr and 57 (75%) had concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve repair. Outcome data between the 2 groups were analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In the MVr/TVr group, tricuspid regurgitation grades were mild in 4 (7%) patients, moderate in 44 (77%) and severe in 9 (15.7%). Significant tricuspid annular dilatation ≥40 mm was present in all patients. In the isolated MVr group, 3 (15.7%) patients had mild tricuspid regurgitation and 16 (84.2%) had moderate tricuspid regurgitation with significant tricuspid annular dilatation present in only 6 patients. Cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp time were 130.6 and 91 minutes versus 85 and 55.4 minutes for robotic MVr/TVr group versus MVr group, respectively (<em>P</em> < .05). The intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were similar: 27.7 versus 27.7 hours and 4.4 versus 4.2 days for MVr/TVr versus MVr (<em>P</em> = .24), respectively. There were no perioperative deaths or heart block in either group. Survival and freedom from reoperation with median follow-up of 16 and 46 months for MVr/TVr and MVr groups, respectively were 100%.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Concomitant robotic-assisted tricuspid valve repair for functional regurgitation can be safely and effectively performed at the time of mitral valve repair with excellent short-term morbidity and mortality results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74032,"journal":{"name":"JTCVS open","volume":"22 ","pages":"Pages 214-221"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11704553/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTCVS open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624002699","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
Objectives
Robotic-assisted mitral valve repair (MVr) is a well-established procedure for management of degenerative mitral valve disease. Limited data regarding concomitant robotic-assisted tricuspid valve repair (TVr) is available. This review investigates prevalence and outcomes of concomitant robotic-assisted mitral and tricuspid valve repair.
Methods
From 2014 to 2022, 839 patients underwent robotic-assisted MVr, including 76 patients with moderate or greater tricuspid regurgitation and/or tricuspid annular dilatation ≥40 mm. Among the 76 patients, 19 (25%) underwent isolated MVr and 57 (75%) had concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve repair. Outcome data between the 2 groups were analyzed.
Results
In the MVr/TVr group, tricuspid regurgitation grades were mild in 4 (7%) patients, moderate in 44 (77%) and severe in 9 (15.7%). Significant tricuspid annular dilatation ≥40 mm was present in all patients. In the isolated MVr group, 3 (15.7%) patients had mild tricuspid regurgitation and 16 (84.2%) had moderate tricuspid regurgitation with significant tricuspid annular dilatation present in only 6 patients. Cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp time were 130.6 and 91 minutes versus 85 and 55.4 minutes for robotic MVr/TVr group versus MVr group, respectively (P < .05). The intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were similar: 27.7 versus 27.7 hours and 4.4 versus 4.2 days for MVr/TVr versus MVr (P = .24), respectively. There were no perioperative deaths or heart block in either group. Survival and freedom from reoperation with median follow-up of 16 and 46 months for MVr/TVr and MVr groups, respectively were 100%.
Conclusions
Concomitant robotic-assisted tricuspid valve repair for functional regurgitation can be safely and effectively performed at the time of mitral valve repair with excellent short-term morbidity and mortality results.