Search

IntroductionMinimally invasive mitral valve repair/replacement has emerged as a widely accepted surgical approach for managing mitral valve disorders. Continuous technological progress has contributed to the refinement of this procedure, leading to improved safety, decreased surgical trauma, and faster recovery times. Despite these advancements, there remains a scarcity of data concerning minimally invasive complex mitral valve repair surgeries when combined with additional procedures.MethodsBetween November 2008 and December 2022, 153 patients underwent an operation using a minimally invasive technique. All patients underwent mitral valve surgery for severe mitral valve insufficiency/stenosis in combination with at least one additional procedure for tricuspid valve repair (n = 52, 34%), patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect closure (n = 34, 22.2%), left atrial appendage occlusion (n = 25, 16.3%), or electrophysiological procedure (n = 101, 66.0%). Two concomitant procedures were conducted in 98 patients (64.1%), three concomitant procedures in 49 patients (32%), and four concomitant procedures in 6 patients (3.9%).ResultsSurgical success was achieved in 99.3% of the patients (n = 152), one patient required a revision of the mitral valve repair on the first postoperative day due to systolic anterior motion phenomenon. Mitral valve repair was performed in 136 patients (88.9%), while 15 patients (9.8%) received a mitral valve replacement as per a preoperative decision due to severe mitral valve stenosis, and two patients (1.3%) underwent other mitral valve procedures. Therapeutic success in treating atrial fibrillation was achieved in 86 patients (85.1%) of the 101 who received an additional maze-procedure. The 30-day mortality rate was 0.7%, with one patient succumbing to respiratory failure. Neurological complications occurred in 7 patients (4.6%). Freedom from reoperation was calculated as 98% at 5-year follow-up and 96.5% at 10-year follow-up.ConclusionMinimally invasive mitral valve surgery, even when performed alongside concomitant procedures, stands out as a reproducible and safe technique with outstanding outcomes. It is imperative to advance towards the next frontier in minimally invasive surgery, encouraging experienced surgeons to undertake more complex procedures using minimally invasive approaches. These results help envision extending the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery by performing complex mitral valve procedures and associated interventions entirely through endoscopic means in suitable patients.

Objectives: Data on anesthetic proceedings during cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implant procedures are scarce and it remains unclear whether anesthetic care is still required in selected patients. Methods: In this retrospective, single center study we assessed the prevalence of intraoperative anesthetic management comprising anesthetic standby, sedation or general anesthesia as well as anesthetic and procedural complications. We analyzed pre-existing and perioperative risk factors related to procedure-related adverse outcome such as perioperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 30-day mortality in a uni- and multivariable analysis. Results: In total, PM and ICD insertion were performed in up to 85% and 58% under anesthetic standby, with an increasing tendency over time.Overall, Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was required in 59 patients. Acute heart failure (AHF) was the only independent pre-existing risk factor for CPR and for 30-day mortality. Sedation and general anesthesia had a significantly increased odds ratio for CPR compared to anesthetic standby. The risk for CPR significantly decreased during the study period. Conclusions: Over the years anesthetic practice during CIED implant procedures shifted from mixed anesthetic proceedings to mainly standby duties. The prevalence of complications and emergency measures is low, however not uncommon. Accordingly, the presence of an anesthesiologist should be further guaranteed when sedatives were titrated and in AHF patients. However, in patients receiving local anesthetic infiltration only, it seems safe to perform CIED implant procedures without anesthetic standby.