Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes Among 3 Left Atrial Incisions: Conventional Direct, Transseptal, and Superior Septal Left Atriotomy.

BACKGROUND

Achieving optimal exposure of the mitral valve during surgical intervention poses a significant challenge. This study aimed to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes associated with 3 left atriotomy techniques in mitral valve surgery-the conventional direct, transseptal, and superior septal approaches-and assess differences during the surgical procedure and the postoperative period.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing mitral valve surgery from January 2010 to December 2020, categorized into 3 cohorts: group 1 (conventional direct; n = 115), group 2 (transseptal; n = 33), and group 3 (superior septal; n = 59). To bolster sample size, the study included patients undergoing mitral valve surgery independently or in conjunction with other procedures (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting, aortictricuspid surgery, or maze procedure).

RESULTS

No substantial variance was observed in the etiology of mitral valve disease across groups, except for a higher incidence of endocarditis in group 3 (P = .01). Group 1 exhibited a higher frequency of elective surgeries and isolated mitral valve procedures (P = .008), along with reduced aortic clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass durations (P = .002). Conversely, group 3 patients represented a greater proportion of emergency procedures (P = .01) and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stays (P = .001). No significant disparities were detected in terms of permanent pacemaker implantation, postoperative complications, or mortality among the groups.

CONCLUSION

Mitral valve operations that employed these 3 atriotomy techniques demonstrated a safe profile. The conventional direct approach notably reduced aortic clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass durations. The superior septal method was primarily employed for acute pathologies, with no significant escalation in postoperative arrhythmias or permanent pacemaker implantation, although these patients had prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stays. These outcomes may be linked to the underlying pathology and nature of the surgical intervention rather than the incision method itself.