• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Minimally invasive cardiac surgery

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 137

http://www.patacsi.org.ph 136
http://www.linkedin.com 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Minimally invasive cardiac surgery Minimally invasive cardiac surgery Presentation Transcript

    • Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery N John Castro,M.D. Cardiac Surgeon Centracare Heart and Vascular Center Saint Cloud, Minnesota
    • Disclosures• Consultant-Surgeon INOVATE HF Trial
    • Advances in Minimally Invasive Surgery• Image: intraop TEE guidance placement of catheters• CPB: smaller cannulas, negative venous drainage• Instruments: long, fine tools• Endoscope• Robot
    • Case One: Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement• A 92-year-old male presents with CHF symptoms: SOB, fatigue• PMH: COPD and CRD• ECHO shows severe aortic stenosis• He underwent mini AVR with a bovine pericardial valve. Postop course uneventful.
    • AVR / CAB
    • Case Two• A 75-year-old presents with acute pulmonary edema.• PMH: DM, Hormone replacement use, LE celluitis, HTN• ECHO: ruptured chordae with severe mitral regurgitation.• He underwent mini MV repair. Discharged home within 5 days.
    • Case Three• A 73-year-old presents with chronic congestive heart failure. Referred to U of M for the 2nd opinion.• PMH: DM, HTN, HLD, CRD• PSH: CABG; AVR; Aortic root replacement.• ECHO: Severe mitral regurgitation due to degenerative change.• He underwent mini MV replacement. Had uneventful hospital stay.
    • MV Repair
    • • MIMVS – does not refer to a single approach – a collection of new techniques and operation- specific technologies • enhanced visualization and instrumentation • modified perfusion methods • all directed toward minimizing surgical trauma by reducing the incision size
    • Colvin and Galloway
    • Colvin and Galloway
    • Colvin and Galloway
    • Colvin and Galloway
    • Colvin and Galloway
    • Moront• Reduced trauma and pain• Statistically decreased blood loss and transfusion requirements• decreased wound infection• Statistically reduced recovery time and more rapid return to work• Better cosmetic results and improved patient satisfaction• no difference in morbidity and mortality• Facilitates redo surgery• avoids sternal wound complications• Statistically reduced incidence of wound infections
    • Birdi I• Excellent cosmetic results for the patient• Reduced pain• Early discharge home• Early return to normal life• Easily reproducible with a fast learning curve• Excellent results in high-risk patients• Excellent mid-term outcomes• Low cost consumables allowing easy introduction in a cost-sensitive environment
    • Lamelas J• Reduced trauma and pain• Decreased blood loss• Decreased wound infection• Reduced recovery time• Better cosmetic results and improved patient satisfaction• No difference in morbidity and mortality• Facilitates redo surgery• Avoids sternal wound complications
    • Holzhey• 1,027 elderly patients (>70 years• August 1999 and July 2009• analyzed for outcome differences due to surgical approach using propensity score matching• etiology – degenerative (83%) – endocarditis (6%) – rheumatic (10%) – acute ischemic (<1%)• Isolated stenosis was rare (3%)• mitral valve regurgitation (72%)• combined mitral valve disease (25%)
    • • longer duration of surgery (186 ± 61 vs 169 ± 59 minutes, p = 0.01)• cardiopulmonary bypass time (142 ± 54 vs 102 ± 45 minutes, p = 0.0001)• cross-clamp time (74 ± 44 vs 64 ± 28 minutes, p = 0.015)
    • • no differences between the matched groups – 30-day mortality (7.7% vs 6.3%, p = 0.82) – combined major adverse cardiac – cerebrovascular events (11.2% vs 12.6%, p = 0.86) – other postoperative outcome
    • • postoperative arrhythmias and pacemaker implants was higher in the sternotomy group (65.7% vs 50.3% p = 0.023 and 18.9% vs 10.5%, p = 0.059)• Long-term survival was 66% ± 5.6% vs 56 ± 5.5% at 5 years and 35% ± 12% vs 40% ± 7.9% at 8 years, and did not show significant differences
    • Holzey
    • Modi, Hassan, Chitwood• 2008• Meta-analysis• 10 year investigational data
    • Mortality• No difference• Mihaljevic – Largest study 474 MIMVS vs 337 MS – (0.2-0.3%) – MIMVS lower risk group• Grossi – Matched group – Hospital mortality (3.7 vs 3.4%)
    • Neurologic events• Mohr – 18% incidence of postoperative confusion – No CO2• 10 studies – no difference in stroke• 2 studies – Reduced stroke rate• 6 studies – No difference in neurologic events
    • Bleeding, transfusion, re-exploration• Chitwood – No difference in blood loss or blood product transfusion – MIMVS fewer re-explorations for bleeding• Glower – No difference in chest tube drainage or transfusion requirements despite longer CPB time in MIMVS• Cohn – MIMVS transfused 1.8 units less• 5 studies – MIMVS showed significant reduction in reoperation for bleeding
    • Atrial Fibrillation• 5/6 studies – No difference• Asher – 100 MICS patients – 10% incidence of new onset AF with port access lower than sternotomy
    • Septic complications• Grossi – MIMVS 0.9% vs. sternotomy 5.7% – Elderly 1.8 vs 7.7
    • Pain and speed of recovery• MIMVS (4/4 studies) – Reduction in pain and faster return to normal activity • Most consistent finding• Walther – Equivalent pain for 1st 2 days with significant reduction afterwards with difference widening with time• Glower – Postop pain resolved more quickly with MIMVS – Patient returned to normal activity 5 weeks earlier
    • Pain and speed of recovery• Cohn – Less pain in hospital – Less analgesic usage – Greater patient satisfaction – Return to normal activity 4.8 weeks ahead• Felger and Vleissis – In Re-do’s, their 2nd procedure (MI) all felt that their recovery was more rapid and less painful than their original sternotomy
    • Hospital stay and costs• Trend for shorter stay in MIMVS but not statistically significant• Chitwood -34%• Cohn -20%• Cosgrove -7%
    • Discharge disposition• Mihaljevic and Cohn – fewer requirements for post-hospital rehabilitation – significant advantage in terms of healthcare savings • 91% being discharged home compared to 67% with a conventional approach
    • Intermediate and long term results• Grossi – Equivalent 1 year freedom from operation – Mihaljevic et al. • significantly better actuarial survival at 5 years for MI patients (95% vs 86%) • explained by a lower risk profile
    • Crude adjusted mortality rate for entire cohort• MVRepair 1.1% (STS 1.5%)• MVReplacement 4.9% (STS 5.5%)
    • Long Term Survival• 100% at mean of 2.3 years to 83% at 6.8 years • vs• Mayo Clinic 5 year survival 86.4%• Cleveland Clinic 5 year survival 82%
    • Freedom from Re-operation• 99.9% at 3.2 years to 91 % at 4 years• Longest followup was 6.3 years with 96.2% freedom• vs Mayo clinic data risk of reoperation – 0.5% per year for isolated posterior leaflet prolapse – 1.64% per year for isolated anterior leaflet prolapse
    • Special Situations• Reoperative surgery – Avoid sternal re-entry – Limited dissection of adhesions – Avoid risk of injury to cardiac structures or patent grafts – Limit post-op bleeding – Less blood loss – Less transfusions – Faster recovery
    • Re-operative surgery case control(Sharony et al)• Equal mortality at 5%• Fewer wound complications• Less blood product• Decreased hospital stay• slightly more favorable mid-term outcomes
    • Bolotin et al.• 71 reoperative mitral valve operations – 38 minithoracotomy – no difference • Mortality • CPB – significantly reduced • intubation times • blood transfusion • hospital stay
    • MIMVS risks• vascular risks with femoral cannulation• Groin seromas can be problematic but are kept to a minimum by – dissection only of the anterior surface of the vessels – clipping lymphatics• phrenic nerve palsy – When the pericardium is opened too posteriorly – place the pericardiotomy at least 3 cm anterior to it. – Excess tension by pericardial retraction
    • Conclusions:• Less invasive procedures are demanded but at the same time proven safety, efficacy and durability are expected• No level one evidence to justify switching to minimally invasive mitral valve surgery
    • • All evidence demonstrates that MIMVS is associated with equal – mortality – neurological events• despite longer cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times
    • • However, MIMVS compared to conventional sternotomy-based surgery, there is less morbidity in terms of – reduced need for reoperation for bleeding – trend towards shorter hospital stay – less pain – faster return to preoperative function levels
    • • translates into improved utilization of limited healthcare resources• long-term outcomes are equivalent to those of conventional surgery
    • • Data for MIMVS after previous cardiac surgery is limited but consistently demonstrates reduced – blood loss – fewer transfusions – faster recovery compared to re-operative sternotomy• patients who undergo a MIMVS as their second procedure feel their recovery is more rapid and less painful than their original sternotomy
    • Bottomline• Most patients do not want a sternotomy• traditional cardiac operations still enjoy proven long-term success and ever- decreasing M&M
    • Case Four: Mini ASD Repair• 32-year-old male presents with heart murmur.• ECHO shows a large ASD, not suitable for percutaneous device closure.• Underwent mini ASD repair. Had a short hospital stay.
    • ASD Repair
    • Case Five: Hybrid CABG/Stent• A 86-year-old female presents with angina.• PMD: Obesity, COPD, DM, HTN, HLD; Bilateral hip dysfunction; UTI.• Angiogram shows severe CAD• She underwent Robotic CABG and stenting during the same hospital stay.
    • What is the da Vinci® Surgical System? • Powered by state-of- the-art robotic technology • Surgeon is in control and operates at the console • Assistant surgeon is next to the patient
    • • 4 robotic arms enable Solo Surgery™ • Fingertip control • 7º of freedom 90º of articulation • Motion scaling and tremor reductionda Vinci Surgical System
    • • 3-channel vision system• High resolution 3-D image• Panoramic view of the surgical fieldda Vinci Surgical System
    • • EndoWrist® Instruments fit through dime- sized incisions• A wide range of instruments are available
    • Indications for Minimally Invasive Surgery• 1. Aortic valve replacement• 2. Mitral valve repair and replacement• 3. CABG• 4. LV pacing lead for biventricular pacing treatment of CHF• 5. Complex ASD
    • Indications for Minimally Invasive Surgery• 6. High risk patients: elderly, immobile, DM, respiratory compromise, osteoporosis• 7. In some complex redo cardiac surgery patients• 8. Hybrid surgery: – 1).Robotic CABG + stents for CAD – 2). Mini AVR + stent – 3). Mini MV repair/replacement + stent – 4). Robotic CABG + mini valve
    • References:• Colvin SB, Galloway AC, A Revolutionary Approach to Mitral Valve Repair, webcast, NYU Medical Center, NY, 2005• Petracek M, Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Replacement and Surgical Ablation, Webcast, St Thomas Heart Institute, Nashville TN 2005• Modi P, Hassan A, Chitwood WR, Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysisEur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008;34:943-952• Holzhey DM, Shi W, Minimally Invasive Versus Sternotomy Approach for Mitral Valve Surgery in Patients Greater Than 70 Years Old: A Propensity-Matched Comparison, Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Aug 2010• Glauber M, Karimov JH, Minimally Invasive mitral valve surgery via right minithoracotomy, MMCTS, Jan 2009.• Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS, Bichell DP, Rosborough DM, Sears SP, Aranki SF. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg 1997;226(October (4)):421-426• Grossi EA, LaPietra A, Ribakove GH, Delianides J, Esposito R, Culliford AT, Derivaux CC, Applebaum RM, Kronzon I, Steinberg BM, Baumann FG, Galloway AC, Colvin SB. Minimally invasive versus sternotomy approaches for mitral reconstruction: comparison of intermediate-term results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;121(April (4)):708-713
    • References• Grossi EA, Galloway AC, Ribakove GH, Buttenheim PM, Esposito R, Baumann FG, Colvin SB. Minimally invasive port access surgery reduces operative morbidity for valve replacement in the elderly. Heart Surg Forum 1999;2(3):212-215• Mihaljevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Byrne JG. One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results. Ann Surg 2004;240(September (3)):529-534• Walther T, Falk V, Metz S, Diegeler A, Battellini R, Autschbach R, Mohr FW. Pain and quality of life after minimally invasive versus conventional cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;67(June (6)):1643-1647• Glower DD, Landolfo KP, Clements F, Debruijn NP, Stafford-Smith M, Smith PK, Duhaylongsod F. Mitral valve operation via port-access versus median sternotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1998;14(October (Suppl. 1)):S143-S147• Vleissis AA, Bolling SF. Mini-reoperative mitral valve surgery. J Cardiac Surg 1998;13(November– December (6)):468-470• Felger JE, Chitwood Jr. WR, Nifong LW, Holbert D. Evolution of mitral valve surgery: toward a totally endoscopic approach. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72(October (4)):1203-1208• Sharony R, Grossi EA, Saunders PC, Schwartz CF, Ursomanno P, Ribakove GH, Galloway AC, Colvin SB. Minimally invasive reoperative isolated valve surgery: early and mid-term results. J Card Surg 2006 May-Jun;21(3):240-244• Bolotin G, Kypson AP, Reade CC, Chu VF, Freund Jr. WL, Nifong LW, Chitwood Jr. WR. Should a video-assisted mini-thoracotomy be the approach of choice for reoperative mitral valve surgery?. J Heart Valve Dis 2004;13(March (2)):155-158• Liao K, Personal Communication, April 18, 2011
    • Thank You!