Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct;164(4):1080-1087.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.12.036. Epub 2020 Dec 17.

A conservative screening algorithm to determine candidacy for robotic mitral valve surgery

Collaborators, Affiliations
Free article

A conservative screening algorithm to determine candidacy for robotic mitral valve surgery

Raphaelle A Chemtob et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Oct.
Free article

Abstract

Objective: Patient selection for robotically assisted mitral valve repair remains controversial. We assessed outcomes of a conservative screening algorithm developed to select patients with degenerative mitral valve disease for robotic surgery.

Methods: From January 2014 to January 2019, a screening algorithm that included transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography scanning was rigorously applied by 3 surgeons to assess candidacy of 1000 consecutive patients with isolated degenerative mitral valve disease (age 58 ± 11 years, 67% male) for robotic surgery. Screening results and hospital outcomes of those selected for robotic versus sternotomy approaches were compared.

Results: With application of the screening algorithm, 605 patients were selected for robotic surgery. Common reasons for sternotomy (n = 395) were aortoiliac atherosclerosis (n = 74/292, 25%), femoral artery diameter <7 mm (n = 60/292, 20%), mitral annular calcification (n = 83/390, 21%), aortic regurgitation (n = 100/391, 26%), and reduced left ventricular function (n = 126/391, 32%). Mitral valve repair was accomplished in 996. Compared with sternotomy, patients undergoing robotic surgery had less new-onset atrial fibrillation (n = 144/582, 25% vs n = 125/373, 34%; P = .002), fewer red blood cell transfusions (n = 61/601, 10% vs 69/395, 17%; P < .001), and shorter hospital stay (5.2 ± 2.9 days vs 5.9 ± 2.1 days; P < .001). No hospital deaths occurred, and occurrence of postoperative stroke in the robotic (n = 3/605, 0.50%) and sternotomy (n = 4/395, 1.0%; P = .3) groups was similar.

Conclusions: This conservative screening algorithm qualified 60% of patients with isolated degenerative mitral valve disease for robotic surgery. Outcomes were comparable with those obtained with sternotomy, validating this as an approach to select patients for robotic mitral valve surgery.

Keywords: minimally invasive; mitral valve repair; mitral valve replacement; robotic surgery; screening algorithm.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in