Robotic mitral valve repair for all prolapse subsets using techniques identical to open valvuloplasty: Establishing the benchmark against which percutaneous interventions should be judged

Rakesh M. Suri, Harold M. Burkhart, Richard C. Daly, Joseph A. Dearani, Soon J. Park, Thoralf M. Sundt, Zhuo Li, Maurice E Sarano, Hartzell V Schaff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

86 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Recent reports have shown that robotic mitral valve repair is effective in treating posterior leaflet disease; however, comparison with trans-sternal (open) valvuloplasty for all prolapse categories has not been performed. Moreover, data from the recently published EVEREST II trial infer that adverse event rates after mitral valve repair for degenerative disease are high. We therefore compared early outcomes of robotic versus open mitral valve repair for patients with mitral valve prolapse. Methods: Among 745 consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic mitral repair for degenerative disease, 95 propensity-matched pairs were identified. Leaflet prolapse categories were similar between groups. Complete mitral valve repair was performed using identical techniques. Results: Median crossclamp and bypass times were longer in the robotic group but decreased significantly over time (P < .001). There were no conversions to open sternotomy, repair rate and early survival were 100%, dismissal mitral regurgitation grade was similar (P = 1.00), and all patients in the robotic group had mild or less mitral regurgitation at 1 month after repair. There were no differences in adverse events (5% open vs 4% robotic, P = 1.00). Patients in the robotic group had shorter postoperative ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay. Conclusions: Robotic mitral valve repair allows complete anatomic correction of all categories of leaflet prolapse using techniques identical to open approaches. Robotic repair effectively corrects mitral regurgitation, offers excellent freedom from adverse events, and facilitates rapid weaning from ventilation, translating into earlier hospital dismissal. Safety and efficacy after both open and robotic mitral valve repair are higher than recently reported in the EVEREST II trial and establish a benchmark against which nonsurgical therapies should be evaluated.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)970-979
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume142
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2011

Fingerprint

Benchmarking
Prolapse
Robotics
Mitral Valve
Mitral Valve Insufficiency
Ventilation
Mitral Valve Prolapse
Sternotomy
Intensive Care Units
Length of Stay
Survival Rate
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Robotic mitral valve repair for all prolapse subsets using techniques identical to open valvuloplasty : Establishing the benchmark against which percutaneous interventions should be judged. / Suri, Rakesh M.; Burkhart, Harold M.; Daly, Richard C.; Dearani, Joseph A.; Park, Soon J.; Sundt, Thoralf M.; Li, Zhuo; Sarano, Maurice E; Schaff, Hartzell V.

In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 142, No. 5, 11.2011, p. 970-979.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4858ec08145c4d6f86ede91f4f77e19b,
title = "Robotic mitral valve repair for all prolapse subsets using techniques identical to open valvuloplasty: Establishing the benchmark against which percutaneous interventions should be judged",
abstract = "Objective: Recent reports have shown that robotic mitral valve repair is effective in treating posterior leaflet disease; however, comparison with trans-sternal (open) valvuloplasty for all prolapse categories has not been performed. Moreover, data from the recently published EVEREST II trial infer that adverse event rates after mitral valve repair for degenerative disease are high. We therefore compared early outcomes of robotic versus open mitral valve repair for patients with mitral valve prolapse. Methods: Among 745 consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic mitral repair for degenerative disease, 95 propensity-matched pairs were identified. Leaflet prolapse categories were similar between groups. Complete mitral valve repair was performed using identical techniques. Results: Median crossclamp and bypass times were longer in the robotic group but decreased significantly over time (P < .001). There were no conversions to open sternotomy, repair rate and early survival were 100{\%}, dismissal mitral regurgitation grade was similar (P = 1.00), and all patients in the robotic group had mild or less mitral regurgitation at 1 month after repair. There were no differences in adverse events (5{\%} open vs 4{\%} robotic, P = 1.00). Patients in the robotic group had shorter postoperative ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay. Conclusions: Robotic mitral valve repair allows complete anatomic correction of all categories of leaflet prolapse using techniques identical to open approaches. Robotic repair effectively corrects mitral regurgitation, offers excellent freedom from adverse events, and facilitates rapid weaning from ventilation, translating into earlier hospital dismissal. Safety and efficacy after both open and robotic mitral valve repair are higher than recently reported in the EVEREST II trial and establish a benchmark against which nonsurgical therapies should be evaluated.",
author = "Suri, {Rakesh M.} and Burkhart, {Harold M.} and Daly, {Richard C.} and Dearani, {Joseph A.} and Park, {Soon J.} and Sundt, {Thoralf M.} and Zhuo Li and Sarano, {Maurice E} and Schaff, {Hartzell V}",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.07.027",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "142",
pages = "970--979",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "0022-5223",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robotic mitral valve repair for all prolapse subsets using techniques identical to open valvuloplasty

T2 - Establishing the benchmark against which percutaneous interventions should be judged

AU - Suri, Rakesh M.

AU - Burkhart, Harold M.

AU - Daly, Richard C.

AU - Dearani, Joseph A.

AU - Park, Soon J.

AU - Sundt, Thoralf M.

AU - Li, Zhuo

AU - Sarano, Maurice E

AU - Schaff, Hartzell V

PY - 2011/11

Y1 - 2011/11

N2 - Objective: Recent reports have shown that robotic mitral valve repair is effective in treating posterior leaflet disease; however, comparison with trans-sternal (open) valvuloplasty for all prolapse categories has not been performed. Moreover, data from the recently published EVEREST II trial infer that adverse event rates after mitral valve repair for degenerative disease are high. We therefore compared early outcomes of robotic versus open mitral valve repair for patients with mitral valve prolapse. Methods: Among 745 consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic mitral repair for degenerative disease, 95 propensity-matched pairs were identified. Leaflet prolapse categories were similar between groups. Complete mitral valve repair was performed using identical techniques. Results: Median crossclamp and bypass times were longer in the robotic group but decreased significantly over time (P < .001). There were no conversions to open sternotomy, repair rate and early survival were 100%, dismissal mitral regurgitation grade was similar (P = 1.00), and all patients in the robotic group had mild or less mitral regurgitation at 1 month after repair. There were no differences in adverse events (5% open vs 4% robotic, P = 1.00). Patients in the robotic group had shorter postoperative ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay. Conclusions: Robotic mitral valve repair allows complete anatomic correction of all categories of leaflet prolapse using techniques identical to open approaches. Robotic repair effectively corrects mitral regurgitation, offers excellent freedom from adverse events, and facilitates rapid weaning from ventilation, translating into earlier hospital dismissal. Safety and efficacy after both open and robotic mitral valve repair are higher than recently reported in the EVEREST II trial and establish a benchmark against which nonsurgical therapies should be evaluated.

AB - Objective: Recent reports have shown that robotic mitral valve repair is effective in treating posterior leaflet disease; however, comparison with trans-sternal (open) valvuloplasty for all prolapse categories has not been performed. Moreover, data from the recently published EVEREST II trial infer that adverse event rates after mitral valve repair for degenerative disease are high. We therefore compared early outcomes of robotic versus open mitral valve repair for patients with mitral valve prolapse. Methods: Among 745 consecutive patients undergoing open or robotic mitral repair for degenerative disease, 95 propensity-matched pairs were identified. Leaflet prolapse categories were similar between groups. Complete mitral valve repair was performed using identical techniques. Results: Median crossclamp and bypass times were longer in the robotic group but decreased significantly over time (P < .001). There were no conversions to open sternotomy, repair rate and early survival were 100%, dismissal mitral regurgitation grade was similar (P = 1.00), and all patients in the robotic group had mild or less mitral regurgitation at 1 month after repair. There were no differences in adverse events (5% open vs 4% robotic, P = 1.00). Patients in the robotic group had shorter postoperative ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay. Conclusions: Robotic mitral valve repair allows complete anatomic correction of all categories of leaflet prolapse using techniques identical to open approaches. Robotic repair effectively corrects mitral regurgitation, offers excellent freedom from adverse events, and facilitates rapid weaning from ventilation, translating into earlier hospital dismissal. Safety and efficacy after both open and robotic mitral valve repair are higher than recently reported in the EVEREST II trial and establish a benchmark against which nonsurgical therapies should be evaluated.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80055013771&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80055013771&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.07.027

DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.07.027

M3 - Article

C2 - 21911231

AN - SCOPUS:80055013771

VL - 142

SP - 970

EP - 979

JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 5

ER -