ObjectiveTo analyze risk factors of early outcomes of mitral valvuloplasty (MVP)for the treatment of degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR). MethodsClinical data of 132 DMR patients who underwent MVP in Fu Wai Hospital between January 1, 2011 and November 1, 2011 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 114 patients (86.4%)were followed up after discharge with their mean age of 51.21±12.78 years, including 76 males (66.7%). Preoperative risk factors of early outcomes of MVP were analyzed. ResultsAmong those patients, there were 25 patients with atrial fibri-llation (AF)(21.9%). Preoperative ejection fraction was 63.88%±6.93%. Preoperative echocardiography showed left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD)was 31.61±5.51 mm/m2. There were 66 patients (57.9%)with tricuspid regurg-itation, and 34 patients (29.8%)underwent concomitant tricuspid valvuloplasty including 10 patients (8.8%)who received tricuspid annuloplasty rings. Two patients died postoperatively, 2 patients underwent re-operation of mitral valve replacement or MVP respectively. Postoperative echocardiography showed moderate or severe mitral regurgitation in 15 patients. Preoperative risk factors of early outcomes of MVP included AF (36.8% vs. 18.9%, P=0.035), large LVEDD (34.02±3.76 mm/m2 vs. 31.15±5.68 mm/m2, P=0.042)and functional mitral regurgitation (15.8% vs. 1.1%, P=0.007). Multivariate analysis showed greater postoperative LVEDD reduction significantly lowered the incidence of postoperative events (HR 0.002, 95% CI < 0.001-0.570, P=0.031). ConclusionsEnlargement of the left ventricle is an independent preoperative risk factor for early outcomes of MVP for DMR patients. Greater postoperative LVEDD reduction significantly lowers the incidence of postoperative events.
Minimally invasive cardiac surgeries are the trend in the future. Among them, robotic cardiac surgery is the latest iteration with several key-hole incision, 3-dimentional visualization, and articulated instrumentation of 7 degree of ergonomic freedom for those complex procedures in the heart. In particular, robotic mitral valve surgery, as well as coronary artery bypass grafting, has evolved over the last decade and become the preferred method at certain specialized centers worldwide because of excellent results. Other cardiac procedures are in various stages of evolution. Stepwise innovation of robotic technology will continue to make robotic operations simpler, more efficient, and less invasive, which will encourage more surgeons to take up this technology and extend the benefits of robotic surgery to a larger patient population.
Objective To compare long-term outcomes following mitral valvuloplasty (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) for native valve endocarditis (NVE). Methods Between November 1993 and August 2016, consecutive 101 patients with NVE underwent mitral surgery in our department, MVP for 52 patients and MVR for 49 patients. There were 69 males and 32 females at age of 38.1±14.9 years. The mean follow-up was 99.4±75.8 months. Results There was no statistical difference in cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, in-hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay or hospital stay after surgery between the two groups. Survival rate at 1, 5, 10, 20 years after surgery was 100.0%, 97.6%, 97.6%, 97.6% for MVP, and 93.5%, 84.3%, 84.3%, 66.2% for MVR with a statistical difference between the two groups (P=0.018). There was no stroke in the patients with MVP during follow-up periods. However, stroke-free survival rate at 1, 5, 10, 20 years after surgery was 100.0%, 93.9%, 89.4%, 70.2% for MVR patients with a statistical difference between the two groups (P=0.023). There was no statistical difference in recurrence of infection, perivalvular leakage and reoperation between the two groups. Composite endpoint-free survival rate at 1, 5, 10, 20 years after surgery was 100.0%, 97.6%, 92.9%, 92.9% for MVP, and 91.3%, 79.6%, 75.8%, 51.0% for MVR with a statistical difference (P=0.006). Conclusion MVP is associated with better outcomes than MVR in the patients with NVE; generalizing MVP technique in the patients with NVE is needed.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 47 patients underwent mitral repair in General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University between January 2010 and June 2014 year. There were 36 males and 11 females with age of 10 months to 65 years, mean age of 42.38±15.27 years. ResultsThere was no operative death within follow-up time of 18±7 months (ranged 14 to 1 586 days). Mitral valve function was normal or traces regurgitation in 33 patients (70.21%). Mild mitral regurgitation occurred in 11 patients (23.40%). Postoperative transesophageal echocardiography showed that 2 patients (4.26%) had moderate regurgitation. They underwent mitral valve repair again and cured. One patient (2.13%) underwent mitral valve replacement because of moderate to severe regurgitation. The dimensions of left atrium and left ventricle obviously decreased and heart function improved significantly compared with preoperative ones. ConclusionStrict control of surgical indications for different valve disease, the use of mitral valve repair technique, mitral surgery can get a good clinical efficacy. Preoperative diagnosis by transesophageal echocardiography, intraoperative monitoring, and immediate postoperative assessment for mitral valve repair results provide good technical support.
Objective To compare the early outcomes of domestic third-generation magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device (LVAD) with or without concomitant mitral valvuloplasty (MVP). Methods The clinical data of 17 end-stage heart failure patients who underwent LVAD implantation combined with preoperative moderate to severe mitral regurgitation in Fuwai Central China Cardiovascular Hospital from May 2018 to March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into a LVAD group and a LVAD+MVP group based on whether MVP was performed simultaneously, and early outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results There were 4 patients in the LVAD group, all males, aged (43.5±5.9) years, and 13 patients in the LVAD+MVP group, including 10 males and 3 females, aged (46.8±16.7) years. All the patients were successful in concomitant MVP without mitral reguragitation occurrence. Compared with the LVAD group, the LVAD+MVP group had a lower pulmonary artery systolic pressure and pulmonary artery mean pressure 72 h after operation, but the difference was not statistically different (P>0.05). Pulmonary artery systolic pressure was significantly lower 1 week after operation, as well as pulmonary artery systolic blood pressure and pulmonary artery mean pressure at 1 month after operation (P<0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in blood loss, operation time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamping time, mechanical ventilation time, or ICU stay time between the two groups (P>0.05). The differences in 1-month postoperative mortality, acute kidney injury, reoperation, gastrointestinal bleeding, and thrombosis and other complications between the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion Concomitant MVP with implantation of domestic third-generation magnetically levitated LVAD is safe and feasible, and concomitant MVP may improve postoperative hemodynamics without significantly increasing perioperative mortality and complication rates.