Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: This study reviews the 223 consecutive mitral valve operations for ischemic mitral insufficiency performed at New York University Medical Center between January 1976 and January 1996. The results for mitral valve reconstruction are compared with those for prosthetic mitral valve replacement. METHODS: From January 1976 to January 1996, 223 patients with ischemic mitral insufficiency underwent mitral valve reconstruction (n = 152) or prosthetic mitral valve replacement (n = 71). Coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 89% of cases of mitral reconstruction and 80% of cases of prosthetic replacement. In the group undergoing reconstruction, 77% had valvuloplasty with a ring annuloplasty and 23% had valvuloplasty with suture annuloplasty. In the group undergoing prosthetic replacement, 82% of patients received bioprostheses and 18% received mechanical prostheses. RESULTS: Follow-up was 93% complete (median 14.6 mo, range 0-219 mo). Thirty-day mortality was 10% for mitral reconstruction and 20% for prosthetic replacement. The short-term mortality was higher among patients in New York Heart Association functional class IV than among those in classes I to III (odds ratio 5.75, confidence interval 1.25-26.5) and was reduced among patients with angina relative to those without angina (odds ratio 0.26, confidence interval 0.05-1.2). The 30-day death or complication rate was similarly elevated among patients in functional class IV (odds ratio 5.53; confidence interval 1.23-25.04). Patients with mitral valve reconstruction had lower short-term complication or death rates than did patients with prosthetic valve replacement (odds ratio 0.43, confidence interval 0.20-0.90). Eighty-two percent of patients with mitral valve reconstruction had no insufficiency or only trace insufficiency during the long-term follow-up period. Five-year complication-free survivals were 64% (confidence interval 54%-74%) for patients undergoing mitral valve reconstruction and 47% (confidence interval 33%-60%) for patients undergoing prosthetic valve replacement. Results of a series of statistical analyses suggest that outcome was linked primarily to preoperative New York Heart Association functional class. CONCLUSIONS: Initial mortalities were similar among patients undergoing prosthetic replacement and valve reconstruction. Poor outcome was primarily related to preexisting comorbidities. Patients undergoing valve reconstruction had fewer valve-related complications. Valve reconstruction resulted in excellent durability and freedom from complications. These findings suggest that mitral valve reconstruction should be considered for appropriate patients with ischemic mitral insufficiency

BACKGROUND: Port access has been described for mitral and bypass surgery. The purpose of this study was to review the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of aortic valve replacement by use of port access. METHODS: Between 1996 and 1999, 153 port-access aortic valve replacements were performed at our institution. The mean age was 63 years (range 16-91 years); 58% were male. The New York Heart Association mean class was III; 18% were in class IV. Thirteen percent had diabetes, 42% hypertension, 7% prior transient ischemic episode or stroke, 7% lung disease, 3% renal failure, and 13% previous surgery. Echocardiograms were obtained after valve replacement in 125 patients (96 intraoperative transesophageal and 97 transthoracic echoes). RESULTS: Median length of stay was 8 days. There were no intraoperative deaths; 10 patients (6.5%) died in the postoperative period. Stroke occurred in 4 (2.6%), sepsis in 5 (3.3%), renal failure in 5 (3.3%), pneumonia in 3 (2%), and wound infection in 1 (0.7%). Tissue prosthesis was present in 83 and a mechanical prosthesis in 42. No or trace regurgitation was seen on 94 of 96 (98%) postbypass intraoperative echocardiograms and mild on 2. On follow-up echocardiograms, moderate regurgitation was seen in 4 of 97 (4.1%), mild-to-moderate in 2 (2.1%), mild in 18 (18.6%), and no or trace in 71 (73.2%). Of those who had aortic regurgitation on intraoperative or follow-up echocardiograms, it was paravalvular in 8. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with a port-access approach is feasible, even in high-risk patients. Small incisions, a low infection rate, and a short length of stay are attainable. However, the complications associated with traditional aortic valve replacement still occur. Echocardiography is valuable both for intraoperative monitoring and follow-up of this new procedure

Acquired communication between the aorta and the pulmonary artery is a rare phenomenon. We describe two patients with a thoracic aortic aneurysm in whom the diagnosis of a communication with the pulmonary artery was first made on transthoracic echocardiography and then more completely elucidated by means of multiple imaging modalities: transesophageal echocardiography, epiaortic ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Representative images from these complementary studies are presented. A successful repair of the fistula was subsequently accomplished in both patients

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