Survival Analysis of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery Versus Conventional Median Sternotomy in the United States.

IF 1 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Cureus Pub Date : 2025-04-07 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.7759/cureus.81859
Pongsaya Saipia, Songphol Tungjitviboonkun
{"title":"Survival Analysis of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery Versus Conventional Median Sternotomy in the United States.","authors":"Pongsaya Saipia, Songphol Tungjitviboonkun","doi":"10.7759/cureus.81859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MiMVS), particularly via right mini-thoracotomy, has gained popularity as an alternative to median sternotomy, potentially reducing surgical trauma and recovery time. However, recent data on its surgical outcomes remain limited. To provide updated insights while minimizing selection bias, we analyzed elective patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, comparing MiMVS and sternotomy in terms of survival, operative times, and perioperative complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study that included patients who underwent mitral valve surgery between 2015 and 2024. Patients were stratified into MiMVS or sternotomy groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests assessed survival, while propensity score matching (PSM) minimized selection bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 422 patients (319 MiMVS, 103 sternotomy), the MiMVS group had a shorter hospital stay (5.0 vs. 8.0 days, p < 0.01) and lower postoperative bleeding (3.9% vs. 9%). Median cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were shorter in MiMVS (76 vs. 94 min, p < 0.01; and 114 vs. 140 min, p < 0.01, respectively). Survival analysis showed no significant difference between groups (log-rank p = 0.07) after PSM. The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality in MiMVS versus sternotomy was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.08-1.12, p = 0.07). However, mitral replacement was associated with a significantly higher mortality risk than mitral repair (HR 5.22, 95% CI: 1.26-21.61, p = 0.04). In-hospital mortality was comparable (1.9% for sternotomy vs. 0.6% for MiMVS, p = 0.25). Reoperation rates at five and 10 years were lower in MiMVS (1.7% vs. 2.1% at five years and 1.7% vs. 3.2% at 10 years).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While MiMVS offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays and lower postoperative bleeding rates, no statistically significant difference in overall survival was found compared to sternotomy. However, a trend toward improved survival with MiMVS was observed. Notably, mitral valve replacement was associated with a significantly higher mortality risk than mitral repair, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing repair whenever feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":93960,"journal":{"name":"Cureus","volume":"17 4","pages":"e81859"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11976183/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cureus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.81859","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MiMVS), particularly via right mini-thoracotomy, has gained popularity as an alternative to median sternotomy, potentially reducing surgical trauma and recovery time. However, recent data on its surgical outcomes remain limited. To provide updated insights while minimizing selection bias, we analyzed elective patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, comparing MiMVS and sternotomy in terms of survival, operative times, and perioperative complications.

Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study that included patients who underwent mitral valve surgery between 2015 and 2024. Patients were stratified into MiMVS or sternotomy groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests assessed survival, while propensity score matching (PSM) minimized selection bias.

Results: Among 422 patients (319 MiMVS, 103 sternotomy), the MiMVS group had a shorter hospital stay (5.0 vs. 8.0 days, p < 0.01) and lower postoperative bleeding (3.9% vs. 9%). Median cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times were shorter in MiMVS (76 vs. 94 min, p < 0.01; and 114 vs. 140 min, p < 0.01, respectively). Survival analysis showed no significant difference between groups (log-rank p = 0.07) after PSM. The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality in MiMVS versus sternotomy was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.08-1.12, p = 0.07). However, mitral replacement was associated with a significantly higher mortality risk than mitral repair (HR 5.22, 95% CI: 1.26-21.61, p = 0.04). In-hospital mortality was comparable (1.9% for sternotomy vs. 0.6% for MiMVS, p = 0.25). Reoperation rates at five and 10 years were lower in MiMVS (1.7% vs. 2.1% at five years and 1.7% vs. 3.2% at 10 years).

Conclusions: While MiMVS offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays and lower postoperative bleeding rates, no statistically significant difference in overall survival was found compared to sternotomy. However, a trend toward improved survival with MiMVS was observed. Notably, mitral valve replacement was associated with a significantly higher mortality risk than mitral repair, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing repair whenever feasible.

美国微创二尖瓣手术与传统胸骨正中切开术的生存分析。
背景:微创二尖瓣手术(MiMVS),特别是通过右小胸切开术,作为胸骨正中切开术的替代方法已经越来越受欢迎,可能减少手术创伤和恢复时间。然而,最近关于其手术结果的数据仍然有限。为了提供最新的见解,同时尽量减少选择偏差,我们分析了接受二尖瓣手术的选择性患者,比较了MiMVS和胸骨切开术在生存率、手术时间和围手术期并发症方面的差异。方法:我们进行了一项单中心回顾性队列研究,纳入了2015年至2024年间接受二尖瓣手术的患者。将患者分层分为MiMVS组和胸骨切开术组。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线和log-rank检验评估了生存率,而倾向评分匹配(PSM)最小化了选择偏差。结果:在422例患者中(319例MiMVS, 103例胸骨切开),MiMVS组住院时间较短(5.0天比8.0天,p < 0.01),术后出血量较低(3.9%比9%)。MiMVS的中位交叉钳夹和体外循环(CPB)时间较短(76 vs 94 min, p < 0.01;114分钟对140分钟,p < 0.01)。生存分析显示PSM后各组间无显著差异(log-rank p = 0.07)。与胸骨切开术相比,经校正的死亡率风险比为0.30 (95% CI: 0.08-1.12, p = 0.07)。然而,二尖瓣置换术的死亡率明显高于二尖瓣修复术(HR 5.22, 95% CI: 1.26-21.61, p = 0.04)。住院死亡率相当(胸骨切开术为1.9%,而MiMVS为0.6%,p = 0.25)。MiMVS患者5年和10年的再手术率较低(5年1.7%对2.1%,10年1.7%对3.2%)。结论:虽然MiMVS具有缩短住院时间和降低术后出血率等优势,但与胸骨切开术相比,总生存率没有统计学上的显着差异。然而,观察到使用MiMVS有改善生存的趋势。值得注意的是,二尖瓣置换术的死亡率明显高于二尖瓣修复术,这强调了在可行的情况下优先修复的重要性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信