Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: This study compares intermediate-term outcomes of mitral valve reconstruction after either the standard sternotomy approach or the new minimally invasive approach. Although minimally invasive mitral valve operations appear to offer certain advantages, such as reduced postoperative discomfort and decreased postoperative recovery time, the intermediate-term functional and echocardiographic efficacy has not yet been documented. METHODS: From May 1996 to February 1999, 100 consecutive patients underwent primary mitral reconstruction through a minimally invasive right anterior thoracotomy and peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass and Port-Access technology (Heartport, Inc, Redwood City, Calif). Outcomes were compared with those for our previous 100 patients undergoing primary mitral repair who were operated on with the standard sternotomy approach. RESULTS: Although patients were similar in age, the patients undergoing the minimally invasive approach had a lower preoperative New York Heart Association classification (2.1 +/- 0.5 vs 2.6 +/- 0.6, P <.001). There was one (1.0%) hospital mortality with the sternotomy approach and no such case with the minimally invasive approach. Follow-up revealed that residual mitral insufficiency was similar between the minimally invasive and sternotomy approaches (0.79 +/- 0.06 vs 0.77 +/- 0.06, P =.89, 0- to 3-point scale); likewise, the cumulative freedom from reoperation was not significantly different (94.4% vs 96.8%, P =.38). Follow-up New York Heart Association functional class was significantly better in the patients undergoing the minimally invasive approach (1.5 +/- 0.05 vs 1.2 +/- 0.05, P <.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate comparable 1-year follow-up results after minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction. Both echocardiographic results and New York Heart Association functional improvements were compatible with results achieved with the standard sternotomy approach. The minimally invasive approach for mitral valve reconstruction provides equally durable results with marked advantages for the patient and should be more widely adopted

BACKGROUND: The predictors of operative time and the effects of learning in isolated valve operations using port-access techniques have not been defined. METHODS: Analysis of covariance was used to examine the determinants of procedure time, pump time, and aortic clamp time. In the largest prospective, registry of patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR, N=199), mitral repair (MVP, N=307), or mitral replacement (MVR, N=232) using port-access techniques 1997-1999 at 27 institutions. RESULTS: Institutional case volume ranged from one to 214 (median 6). Operative time was longer in redo procedures (5.3 +/- 1.6 vs. 4.4 +/- 1.3 hr, p = 0.0001), longer with MVP or MVR vs. AVR (4.8 +/- 1.2 vs. 5.0 +/- 1.5 vs. 3.8 +/- 1.2 hr, p = 0.0001), and decreased with case number (mean decrease 1.00 +/- 0.19 min/case, p = 0.04). Operative time also varied between institutions (p = 0.001). Rate of learning (decrease in time per case) varied significantly between institutions only for MVP (p = 0.03). Similar analysis showed that pump time and clamp times did not significantly change over time (p > 0.17) but varied significantly between institutions. Institutional volume did not affect operative, pump, or clamp times or rate of learning (decrease in operative time/case). CONCLUSIONS: These prospective registry data demonstrate that, for port-access valve procedures, procedure times continue to improve (learning) even after 100 cases. Procedure time and learning are affected by institutional differences and by the type of procedure, but are little affected by institutional volume. This data provides a model to understand learning of new surgical procedures, and this data suggests that port-access valve procedures can be mastered by a variety of institutions