Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 22, 2026
Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
Minimally Invasive Extracorporeal Bypass in Minimally Invasive Heart Valve Operations: A Prospective Randomized Trial
Hardy Baumbach1, Christian J Rustenbach1, Samir Ahad1
1Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
Background:
Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MECC) is predominantly used in coronary operations. Data supporting the benefits of MECC in minimally invasive valve operations are still absent.
Methods:
Patients undergoing either isolated minimally invasive mitral or aortic valve procedures were prospectively randomized to a minimally invasive group (MECC; n = 101) or a conventional extracorporeal circulation group (CECC; n = 99). The procedural and postoperative outcomes were compared, including the levels of inflammation factors (procalcitonin, interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8, and IL-10), tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α], and interferon-gamma [IFN-γ]).
Results:
The demographics were comparable between the groups regarding age (MECC versus CECC, 70.5 ± 10.2 years versus 73.1 ± 8.9 years; P = 0.086), left ventricular function (59.2% ± 13.4% versus 62.1% ± 14.0%; p = 0.302), EuroSCORE (7.4% ± 7.9% versus 6.8% ± 4.0%; p = 0.256), and other comorbidities. Hospital mortality (n = 1 versus n = 3; p = 0.339) and other complications were similar. However, hemoglobin level (111.9 ± 19.0 g/L versus 103.8 ± 14.6 g/L; p = 0.001), the number of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) (1.1 ± 1.9 versus 1.7 ± 1.8; p = 0.003), the levels of ILs (IL-6, 194.0 ± 131.8 pg/mL versus 289.2 ± 62.5 pg/mL; p = 0.020; IL-8, 38.1 ± 27.3 pg/mL versus 45.8 ± 43.4 pg/mL; p = 0.012; IL-10, 29.0 ± 123.9 pg/mL versus 49.9 ± 85.6 pg/mL; p = 0.012), TNF-α (3.8 ± 6.7 ng/mL versus 10.8 ± 47.7 ng/mL; p = 0.049), and IFN-γ (1.9 ± 1.9 pg/mL versus 4.5 ± 2.7 pg/mL; p = 0.027) were in favor of patients in the MECC group. Additionally, those patients had shorter postoperative ventilation time (7.7 ± 8.4 hours versus 9.3 ± 12.9 hours; p = 0.010) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (1.2 ± 1.2 days versus 2.2 ± 3.8 days; p = 0.047).
Conclusions:
The intraprocedural data were excellent and comparable in the groups, but postoperative outcomes were better in the MECC group. Thus MECC is preferable to CECC even for minimally invasive valve procedures. These findings strongly support a combined strategy of minimally invasive valve operations and minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation.
