Clinical results of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: endoaortic clamp versus external aortic clamp techniques

: This study was carried out with the aim of presenting our experience with minimally invasive mitral surgery and compare the endoaortic clamp with the external aortic clamp (EAC) techniques.

: Between December 2002 and May 2009, 139 patients (75 men, aged 63 ± 11 years) underwent video-assisted mitral valve surgery through right thoracotomy. Twelve (9%) patients were operated without clamping the aorta, 32 (23%) patients (group A) were operated on by using the endoaortic clamp, and 95 (68%) patients were operated on by using the EAC (group B). There was no significant difference between groups A and B regarding preoperative variables.

: Intraoperative procedure-associated problems were experienced in three group A patients (9.3%, two aortic dissections with conversion to sternotomy; one conversion due to bad exposure) and in two group B patients (2%, one conversion to sternotomy for bleeding and one for ascending aorta hematoma). At a mean follow-up of 32 months, 121 patients (97%) were in New York Heart Association class I-II, with satisfactory echocardiographic results. There was one in-hospital and six late deaths (three noncardiac, two cardiac, and one valve related). Five-year actuarial survival was 88% ± 8%. There were three reoperations, one early (<30 days) after complex mitral valve repair, with a 5-year freedom from reoperation of 97% ± 2%. Postoperative levels of myocardial cytonecrosis enzymes as well as the extracorporeal circulation time were significantly lower in group B patients (P < 0.05).

: Intraoperative procedure-associated complications with endoclamping combined with an apparently better myocardial protection forced us to change our practice to the more simple and economic EAC technique.