RESUMO

Abstract Introduction: In minimally invasive mitral valve repair, right minithoracotomy is the most widely performed method, providing a good view of the mitral valve. But regarding other techniques and although it offers limited visualization, the periareolar access is a less traumatic alternative. This study's purpose is to compare in-hospital outcomes in patients who underwent video-assisted minimally invasive mitral valve repair via right minithoracotomy and periareolar access. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study including 37 patients (> 18 years old), without previous right thoracic surgery, who underwent their primary mitral valve repair, with indication for minimally invasive video-assisted approach (via right minithoracotomy or periareolar access), between January 2018 and August 2019. Patients' medical records were consulted to collect demographics data, operative details, and in-hospital outcomes. Results: Twenty-one patients underwent right minithoracotomy, and 16 were operated via periareolar access. The mean patients' age was 62±12 years in the right minithoracotomy group and 61±9 years in the periareolar access group (P=0.2). There are no significant differences in incision length, cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamping time, hematocrit, amount of chest tube drainage, and intensive care unit and in-hospital length of stay. Time to extubation presented significant differences between the right minithoracotomy and the periareolar access group (4.85 hours vs. 5.62 hours, respectively) (P=0.04). Conclusion: In this study, we found similar results in the two applied surgical techniques, except for the time to extubation.

RESUMO

Objective: To assess the potential benefits of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) compared with conventional AVR (CAVR) by examining short-term outcomes. Methods: A systematic search identified randomized trials comparing MIAVR with CAVR. To assess study limitations and quality of evidence, we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE and performed random-effects meta-analysis. We used meta-regression and sensitivity analysis to explore reasons for diversity. Results: Thirteen studies (1,303 patients) were included. For the comparison of MIAVR and CAVR, the risk of bias was judged low or unclear and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference was observed in mortality, stroke, acute kidney failure, infectious outcomes, cardiac events, intubation time, intensive care unit stay, reoperation for bleeding, and blood transfusions. Blood loss (mean difference [MD] = -130.58 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -216.34 to -44.82, I2 = 89%) and hospital stay (MD = -0.93 days, 95% CI = -1.62 to -0.23, I2 = 81%) were lower with MIAVR. There were shorter aortic cross-clamp (MD = 5.99 min, 95% CI = 0.99 to 10.98, I2 = 93%) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (MD = 7.75 min, 95% CI = 0.27 to 15.24, I2 = 94%) in the CAVR group. In meta-regression analysis, we found that age was the variable with the greatest influence on heterogeneity. Conclusions: MIAVR seems to be an excellent alternative to CAVR, reducing hospital stay and incidence of hemorrhagic events. Despite significantly greater aortic cross-clamp and CPB times with MIAVR, this did not translate into adverse effects, with no changes in the results found with CAVR.

Assuntos