Abstract
Background: Despite the cosmetic benefits of the minimally invasive approach for mitral disease, the clinical benefit and risk are not fully known. We investigated the benefit and risk of minimally invasive mitral valve (MV) repair for type II dysfunction using propensity score-matched analysis.
Methods and Results: Since 2001, 602 patients have undergone MV repair for type II dysfunction (464 with conventional median sternotomy and 138 with the minimally invasive approach). One-to-one matched analysis using the estimated propensity score based on 23 factors resulted in 93 well-matched patient pairs. There was no in-hospital death in both groups. The operation time was significantly shorter (P=0.002), blood transfusion was less frequent (P=0.04), extubation at the day of surgery was more frequently performed (P=0.017), and the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the minimally invasive group than in the sternotomy group (P<0.0001). On postoperative (P=0.02) and 1-year echocardiography (P=0.04), ejection fraction was lower in the minimally invasive group than in the sternotomy group. There were no significant differences in postoperative cerebral infarction, aortic dissection, deep sternal infection, or mid-term outcome between the groups.
Conclusions: Standard sternotomy and the minimally invasive approach provide similar good quality of MV repair for type II dysfunction. The minimally invasive approach is more likely to contribute to fast-track perioperative treatment than the standard sternotomy approach.
