Comparison between conventional open-heart valve surgery and minimally invasive valve replacement surgery regarding the length of hospital stay and usage of blood derivates: insights from a single-centre, single-surgeon study conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Aim To analyse the correlation between different surgical methodologies employed in valve diseases treatment and their subsequent impact on the duration of hospitalization. Methods This retrospective study conducted at the Clinical Centre of the University of Sarajevo analysed medical records of 163 valve disease patients treated between January 2019 and November 2022. The patients were divided into two groups: 77 had openheart valve surgery and 86 underwent minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS). Results The mean duration of the surgical procedures was 3.9±1.3 hours, with conventional open-heart surgery requiring an average of 3.6±1.1 hours and minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) procedure 4.2±1.5 hours. No substantial disparities were found in the total length of hospitalization between the two groups, as both conventional (8.2±4.5 days) and MICS (8.7±7.0 days) demonstrated similar duration. Similarly, the total duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay displayed similarity, with conventional surgery patients staying an average of 3.9±2.8 days and MICS patients of 4.2±4.1 days. The pattern of blood transfusion and fresh-frozen plasma usage revealed higher rates in the conventional valve surgery group comparing to the MICS group. Conclusion Minimally invasive valve surgery, despite slightly longer operative times, resulted in lower blood transfusion requirements and comparable hospitalization and ICU stay.
Movahed M, Etemad S, Hashemzadeh M. Hashemzadeh M. Persistent reduction in the age adjusted mortality rate from aortivc valve surgery in the United States with elimination of gender gap in recent years. Am J Cardiovasc Dis 2020:522–7.
2
Sündermann S, Czerny M, Falk V. Open vs. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: surgical technique, indications and results. Cardiovasc Eng Technol 2015:160–6.
3
Botta L, Cannata A, Bruschi G, Fratto P, Taglieri C, Russo C, et al. Minimally invasive approach for redo mitral valve surgery. J Thorac Dis 2013:686–93.
4
Shechter A, Lee M, Kaewkes D, Koren O, Skaf S, Chakravarty T, et al. Siegel RJ. Repeat mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for recurrent significant mitral regurgitation. J Am Heart Assoc 2023:28654.
5
Sorajja P, Ukaigwe A. Edge-to-edge repair: past challenge, current case selection and future advances. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2021:43–9.
6
Bergsland J, Mujanovic E, Elle O, Mirtaheri P. Fosse E. Minimally invasive repair of the mitral valve: technological and clinical developments. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 2011:72–7.
7
Grant S, Hickey G, Modi P, Hunter S, Akowuah E, Zacharias J. Propensity-matched analysis of minimally invasive approach versus sternotomy for mitral valve surgery. Heart 2019:783–9.
Iba Y, Yamada A, Kurimoto Y, Hatta E, Maruyama R, Miura S. Perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive aortic arch reconstruction with branched grafts through a partial upper sternotomy. Ann Vasc Surg 2020:217–23.
10
Ullah W, Sattar Y, Mukhtar M, Abdullah H, Figueredo V, Haas D, et al. Outcomes of open mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter mitral valve repair; insight from the National Inpatient Sample Database. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc 2020:100540.
11
Ko K, De Kroon T, Post M, Kelder J, Schut K, Saouti N, et al. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic safety analysis. Open Heart 2020:1393.
12
Pope N, Ailawadi G. Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 2014:387–94.
13
Berger J, Holubkov R, Reeder R, Wessel D, Meert K, Berg R, et al. Morbidity and mortality prediction in pediatric heart surgery: physiological profiles and surgical complexity. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017:620–8.
14
Schlösser F, Vaartjes I, Van Der Heijden G, Moll F, Verhagen H, Muhs B, et al. Mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Surg 2010:158–64.
15
Cohn L. Minimally invasive valve surgery. J Card Surg 2001:260–5.
16
Glauber M, Ferrarini M, Miceli A. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: state of the art and future directions. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015:26–32.
17
Shahian D, Jacobs J, Badhwar V, Kurlansky P, Furnary A, Cleveland J, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 adult cardiac surgery risk models: Part 1-background, design considerations, and Model Development. Ann Thorac Surg 2018:1411–8.
18
Kirmani B, Mazhar K, Fabri B, Pullan D. Comparison of the EuroSCORE II and Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 risk tools. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013:999–1005.
19
Abu-Omar Y, Fazmin I, Ali J, Pelletier M. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. J Thorac Dis 2021:1960–70.
20
Singh K, Anderson E, Harper J. Overview and management of sternal wound infection. Semin Plast Surg 2011:25–33.
21
Wolfe J, Malaisrie S, Farivar R, Khan J, Hargrove W, Moront M, et al. Innovations (Phila) 2016:251–9.
22
Harky A, Botezatu B, Kakar S, Ren M, Shirke M, Pullan M. Mitral valve diseases: Pathophysiology and interventions. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2021:98–104.
Bonacchi M, Prifti R, Giunti G, Frati G, Sani G. Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg 2002:460–5.
25
Filip G, Bryndza M, Konstanty-Kalandyk J, Piatek J, Wegrzyn P, Ceranowicz P, et al. Ministernotomy or sternotomy in isolated aortic valve replacement? Early results. Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol 2018:213–8.
26
Gulbins H, Pritisanac A, Hannekum A. Minimally invasive heart valve surgery: already established in clinical routine? Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2004:837–43.
27
Tommaso D, Bruno E, V. Commentary: The rise of minimalism in cardiac surgery. JTCVS Tech 2021:67–8.
28
Glauber M, Karimov J, Farneti P, Cerillo A, Santarelli F, Ferrarini M, et al. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery via right minithoracotomy. Multimed Man Cardiothorac Surg 2009;(122).
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
