ObjectiveTo investigate the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation with mitral valve replacement under totally thoracoscopic surgery.MethodsThe clinical data of 107 patients with rheumatic mitral disease and atrial fibrillation who underwent mitral valve replacement and radiofrequency ablation at the same time in our hospital from January 2014 to October 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: a totally thoracoscopic surgery group (n=51, including 20 males and 31 females, aged 50.57±5.24 years) and a median sternotomy group (n=56, including 21 males and 35 females, aged 52.12±5.59 years) according to the surgical methods. The preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data of the patients were compared.ResultsAll operations were successfully completed without death. In terms of bleeding volume, drainage volume, ventilator-assisted breathing time, hospital stay and incision length, the totally thoracoscopic surgery group was better than the median sternotomy group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The cardiopulmonary bypass time and radiofrequency ablation time in the totally thoracoscopic surgery group were longer than those in the median sternotomy group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the operation time, aortic occlusion time, postoperative complications, left ventricular ejection fraction, left atrial diameter and sinus rhythm maintenance between the two groups (P>0.05). There was no atrioventricular block, pulmonary vein stenosis, atrioesophageal fistula, coronary artery injury, stroke or hemorrhage during the follow-up.ConclusionRadiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation with mitral valve replacement under totally thoracoscopic surgery is safe and effective, and it is worthy of clinical application.
Objective To investigate and evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Chimney technique in mitral valve reoperation. Methods The clinical data of mitral valve reoperation patients who underwent Chimney surgery in Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital from 2019 to 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Results A total of 26 patients were collected, including 7 males and 19 females, aged 27-67 (53.46±11.18) years. All patients had previous mitral valve surgery, including 23 mitral valve replacements and 3 mitral valve repairs. All patients received Chimney technique using the ideal artificial sized mitral valve, and 1 patient died of neurological complications in hospital. The cardiopulmonary bypass time and the aortic cross-clamping time were 231.11±77.05 min and 148.50±52.70 min, respectively. The mean diameter of the implanted mitral valve prosthesis was 29.08±0.68 mm, which was statistically different from pre-replacement valve prosthesis size of 26.69±0.77 mm (P＜0.001). The mean transvalvular pressure gradient of the prosthetic mitral valve measured on postoperative echocardiography was 14.77±5.34 mm Hg, which was statistically different from preoperative value of 20.92±9.83 mm Hg (P=0.005). Conclusion The Chimney technique is safe and effective for reoperation in patients with small mitral annuli, which can not only reduce the risk of reoperation, but also obtain larger prosthetic valve implants with good hemodynamic characteristics and clinical outcomes.
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.
Mitral regurgitation is the most common cardiac valve disease, with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is used as a promising intervention in non-surgical patients and in those with unsuitable anatomy for transcatheter edge-to-edge repair. TMVR can also be performed for inoperable or high-risk patients with degenerated or failed bioporstheses or failed repairs, or in patients with severe annular calcifications. The complex anatomy of the mitral valves makes the design of transcatheter mitral valve prostheses extremely challenging, and increases the difficulty of TMVR procedure, thus could led to non-negligible complications including periprocedural and post-procedural long-term complications. This review aims to discuss the potential TMVR-complications and measures implemented to mitigate these complications, in order to improve the prognosis of TMVR patients.
Thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement is a common minimally invasive cardiac surgery procedure. However, small annulus, severe calcification of the annulus, and severe thickening of the posterior valve leaflet or sub valvular structure are the difficulties of thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement. Improper treatment can easily lead to left ventricular rupture or prosthesis-patient mismatch. This paper reports a thoracoscopic mitral bioprosthesis replacement case using the chimney technique in Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital and summarizes its operating key points. The patient was a 68-year-old female, weighing 36 kg. The preoperative diagnosis was rheumatic mitral stenosis and atrial fibrillation, the preoperative transthoracic echocardiogram showed the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter was 39 mm. The surgical effect was satisfactory. The patient was in good condition at the follow-up 2 months after the operation.
ObjectiveTo summarize and analyze the clinical outcomes of one-stage transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) combined with transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) in patients with concomitant severe aortic and mitral valve disease. Methods We retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients who underwent one-stage TAVR and TMVR at Beijing Anzhen Hospital between January 2019 and May 2025. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and perioperative echocardiographic results were recorded. Survivors were followed regularly, and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was assessed. ResultsA total of 12 high-risk patients with concomitant severe aortic and mitral valve disease were included, comprising 7 males with a mean age of (73.3±5.4) years. Aortic valve pathology included mixed lesions (n=1), aortic regurgitation (n=8), and aortic stenosis (n=3). Among them, 7 patients had previously undergone surgical bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Mitral valve pathology consisted of bioprosthetic valve degeneration leading to isolated regurgitation (n=8) or mixed lesions (n=4); 11 patients had a prior surgical bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement. All patients successfully underwent one-stage TAVR combined with TMVR, with 10 procedures performed via the transapical approach, 1 via the transfemoral approach, and 1 via a combined transfemoral-transapical approach. Valve deployment was successful in all cases, with an overall device success rate of 91.7%. The median intensive care unit stay was 1.5 (IQR 1.3, 3.4) d. Early postoperative complications included 2 perioperative deaths and 2 cases of gastrointestinal bleeding, with no other major cardiovascular events observed. During follow-up, there were no deaths, permanent pacemaker implantations, and no occurrences of moderate-to-severe valve stenosis, paravalvular leak, or left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. Conclusion This study demonstrates that one-stage TAVR combined with TMVR is safe and effective in selected high-risk patients with concomitant severe aortic and mitral valve disease, and represents a feasible therapeutic option.
Objective To compare the mid- and long-term clinical results of mitral valve plasty (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) in the treatment of functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). MethodsPatients with FMR who underwent surgical treatment in the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command from 2012 to 2021 were collected. The patients who underwent MVP were divided into a MVP group, and those who underwent MVR into a MVR group. The clinical data and mid-term follow-up efficacy of two groups were compared. Results Finally 236 patients were included. There were 100 patients in the MVP group, including 53 males and 47 females, with an average age of (61.80±8.03) years. There were 136 patients in the MVR group, including 72 males and 64 females, with an average age of (61.29±8.97) years. There was no statistical difference in baseline data between the two groups (P＞0.05). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in the extracorporeal circulation time, aortic occlusion time, postoperative hospital and ICU stay, intraoperative blood loss, or hospitalization death (P＞0.05), but the time of mechanical ventilation in the MVP group was significantly shorter than that in the MVR group (P=0.022). The total follow-up rate was 100.0%, the longest follow-up was 10 years, and the average follow-up time was (3.60±2.55) years. There were statistical differences in the left atrial diameter, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular end-systolic diameter and cardiac function between the two groups compared with those before surgery (P<0.05). The postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction in the MVP group was statistically higher than that before surgery (P=0.002), but there was no statistical difference in the MVR group before and after surgery (P=0.658). The left atrial diameter in the MVP group was reduced compared with the MVR group (P=0.026). The recurrence rate of mitral regurgitation in the MVP group was higher than that in the MVR group, and the difference was statistically significant (10.0% vs. 1.5%, P=0.003). There were 14 deaths in the MVP group and 19 in the MVR group. The cumulative survival rate (P=0.605) and cardiovascular events-free survival rate (P=0.875) were not statistically significant between the two groups by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Conclusion The safety, and mid- and long-term clinical efficacy of MVP in the treatment of FMR patients are better than MVR, and the left atrial and left ventricular diameters are statistically reduced, and cardiac function is statistically improved. However, the surgeon needs to be well aware of the indications for the MVP procedure to reduce the rate of mitral regurgitation recurrence.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of mitral valvuloplasty (MVP) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) for infective endocarditis, and to investigate the effect of MVP under different surgical risks. MethodsA retrospective study was done on the patients with mitral infective endocarditis, who underwent surgical treatment in our department from January 2018 to March 2022. According to the procedures, the patients were divided into a MVP group and a MVR group. Propensity score matching method was applied with a ratio of 1:1 to eliminate the biases. The early and midterm outcomes were compared between the two groups after matching. According to the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation Ⅱ(EuroSCORE-Ⅱ), the effect of MVP was compared between high and low risk patients. ResultsA total of 195 patients were collected. There were 141 patients in the MVP group (120 males, 85.1%) and 54 patients in the MVR group (41 males, 75.9%). The mean follow-up time was (34.0±16.1) months. Patients in the MVP group were younger [(42.7±14.6) years vs. (56.8±13.0) years, P<0.001] and had better preoperative conditions. The patients in the MVP group had a shorter ICU stay [3.0 (2.0, 5.0) d vs. 4.0 (3.0, 8.0) d, P=0.004], and lower incidences of low cardiac output syndrome (0.7% vs. 9.3%, P=0.007), in-hospital mortality (0.0% vs. 3.7%, P=0.023), and follow-up mortality (4.3% vs. 15.4%, P=0.007). However, after 1:1 propensity score matching, there were no statistical differences in the baseline data or postoperative and follow-up adverse events between the two groups (P>0.05). Also, there was no statistical difference in the mortality of high-risk patients between MVP and MVR group (P>0.05). There was no statistical difference in the reoperation or recurrent severe mitral regurgitation between high and low-risk patients in the MVP group (P>0.05). Conclusion MVP is feasible for treating mitral lesions caused by infective endocarditis with good early and midterm outcomes. For patients with severer preoperative conditions, if the leaflet damage is not severe, MVP may be a viable option, but validation with larger sample sizes is needed.
For mitral valve disease with mitral annular calcification (MAC), surgery remains challenging. Up to now, there is no ideal management strategy or patient selection standard, and perioperative and periprocedural morbidity and mortality rates remain high. The recent surge of patients presenting with MAC has been accompanied by increased interest in MAC surgery and interventions. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Clinical Practice Standards Committee is meant to provide a simplified outline for managing MAC. Combined with progress of MAC therapy, a detailed interpretation of the 2025 expert consensus is provided which include patient selection, preoperative evaluation (especially imaging evaluation), indications of intervention, surgical and transcatheter therapeutic options, and postoperative complications and remedial measures.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of different surgical strategies for moderate functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on patients' prognosis.MethodsA total of 118 AVR patients, including 84 males and 34 females, aged 58.1±12.4 years, who were complicated with moderate FMR were retrospectively recruited. Patients were divided into three groups according to the treatment strategy of mitral valve: a group A (no intervention, n=11), a group B (mitral valve repair, n=51) and a group C (mitral valve replacement, n=56). The primary endpoint was the early and mid-term survival of the patients, and the secondary endpoint was the improvement of FMR.ResultsThe median follow-up time was 29.5 months. Five patients died perioperatively, all of whom were from the group C. Early postoperative FMR improvement rates in the group A and group B were 90.9% and 94.1% (P=0.694). The mid-term mortality in the three groups were 0.0%, 5.9% and 3.9%, respectively (P=0.264), while the incidences of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were 0.0%, 9.8% and 17.7%, respectively (P=0.230). Improvements of FMR in the group A and group B were 100.0% and 94.3% at the mid-term follow-up (P>0.05).ConclusionFor patients receiving AVR with moderate FMR, conservative treatment or concurrent repair of mitral valve may be more reasonable, while mitral valve replacement may increase the incidence of early and mid-term adverse events.