Gilmanov Daniyar, Miceli Antonio, Ferrarini Matteo, Farneti Pierandrea, Murzi Michele, Solinas Marco, Glauber Mattia
Department of Adult Cardiac Surgery, G. Pasquinucci Heart Hospital, Gabriele Monasterio Foundation, Massa, Italy.
Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Nov;98(5):1585-92. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.092. Epub 2014 Sep 8.
The impact of sutureless prosthesis on the clinical outcome in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is still unclear. We assessed mid-term outcomes of the sutureless and conventional valves implanted through right anterior minithoracotomy.
Five hundred fifteen patients undergoing primary aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy (269 conventional versus 246 sutureless prostheses) between 2004 and 2014 were reviewed. The most common sutured prostheses were Carpentier-Edwards Perimount and Medtronic Mosaic, and the Sorin Perceval S mainly composed the sutureless prosthesis group. One hundred thirty-three pairs of patients were propensity matched and retrospectively analyzed.
Cardiopulmonary bypass (p<0.0001) and cross-clamping (p<0.0001) times were shorter in the sutureless group (S group). We observed the same in-hospital mortality (1 versus 2; p=0.62) and incidence of postoperative stroke and pacemaker implant between the groups, but shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (6 versus 7 hours; p=0.001) in the S group. Generally, larger prostheses were implanted in the S group (p<0.0001). Follow-up was longer (p<0.0001) for sutured valves: 52 versus 15 months (overall median, 21 months). Overall Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 87.2% versus 97.0% (p=0.33) and 50% versus 100% (p=0.02) in elderly patients for sutured versus sutureless prostheses, respectively. Freedom from reoperation at follow-up (p=0.64) and transaortic gradients (12 versus 11 mm Hg; p=0.78) did not differ in the two groups.
In the present limited cohort of patients, sutureless prostheses reduced operative times for aortic valve replacement and the duration of mechanically assisted ventilation and might have influenced early and mid-term survival. Larger studies are needed to confirm our data and compare long-term outcomes.
无缝合人工瓣膜对微创主动脉瓣置换术临床结局的影响仍不明确。我们评估了通过右前小切口植入的无缝合瓣膜和传统瓣膜的中期结局。
回顾了2004年至2014年间515例行初次主动脉瓣置换术并通过右前小切口手术的患者(269例使用传统瓣膜,246例使用无缝合人工瓣膜)。最常用的缝合人工瓣膜是Carpentier-Edwards Perimount和Medtronic Mosaic,无缝合人工瓣膜组主要使用Sorin Perceval S。对133对患者进行倾向匹配并进行回顾性分析。
无缝合组(S组)的体外循环时间(p<0.0001)和主动脉阻断时间(p<0.0001)较短。两组的院内死亡率(1例对2例;p=0.62)以及术后中风和起搏器植入发生率相同,但S组的机械通气时间较短(6小时对7小时;p=0.001)。一般来说,S组植入的人工瓣膜更大(p<0.0001)。缝合瓣膜的随访时间更长(p<0.0001):52个月对15个月(总体中位数为21个月)。在老年患者中,缝合瓣膜与无缝合人工瓣膜的总体Kaplan-Meier生存率分别为87.2%对97.0%(p=0.33)和50%对100%(p=0.02)。两组随访时再次手术的自由度(p=0.64)和跨主动脉压差(12 mmHg对11 mmHg;p=0.78)无差异。
在目前这个有限的患者队列中,无缝合人工瓣膜缩短了主动脉瓣置换术的手术时间和机械辅助通气时间,并且可能影响了早期和中期生存率。需要更大规模的研究来证实我们的数据并比较长期结局。