Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 1, 2025
Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
Combining Minimally Invasive Surgery With Ultra-Fast-Track Anesthesia in HeartMate 3 Patients: A Pilot Study
Usaama Ahmad1, Mohammad Amen Khattab1, Gereon Schaelte2
1Faculty of Medicine, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (U.A., M.A.K., A.M., L.T., R.A., H.S., R.Z.), RWTH University Hospital Aachen, RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
Background:
Minimally invasive surgery for left ventricular assist device implantation may have advantages over conventional sternotomy (CS). Additionally, ultra-fast-track anesthesia has been linked to better outcomes after cardiac surgery. This study summarizes our early experience of combining minimally invasive surgery with ultra-fast-track anesthesia (MIFTA) in patients receiving HeartMate 3 devices and compares the outcomes between MIFTA and CS.
Methods:
From October 2015 to January 2019, 18 of 49 patients with Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profiles >1 underwent MIFTA for HeartMate 3 implantation. For bias reduction, propensity scores were calculated and used as a covariate in a regression model to analyze outcomes. Weighted parametric survival analysis was performed.
Results:
In the MIFTA group, intensive care unit stays were shorter (mean difference, 8 days [95% CI, 4-13]; P<0.001), and the incidences of pneumonia and right heart failure were lower than those in the CS group (odds ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.01-1.75]; P=0.016, respectively). At 6 and 12 hours postoperatively, MIFTA patients had a better hemodynamic performance with lower pulmonary wedge pressure (mean difference, 2.23 mm Hg [95% CI, 0.41-4.06]; P=0.028) and a higher right ventricular stroke work index (mean difference, -1.49 g·m/m2 per beat [95% CI, -2.95 to -0.02]; P=0.031). CS patients had a worse right heart failure-free survival rate (hazard ratio, 2.35 [95% CI, 0.96-5.72]; P<0.01).
Conclusions:
Compared with CS, MIFTA is a beneficial approach for non-Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support 1 HeartMate 3 patients with lower adverse event incidences, better hemodynamic performance, and preserved right heart function. Future large multicentric investigations are required to verify MIFTA's effects on outcomes.
