A propensity matched comparison of robotic vs. traditional minimal access approach for mitral valve repair with concomitant cryoablation

Magdalena Rufa; Ragi Nagib; Dincer Aktuerk; Samir Ahad; Mihnea Ghinescu; Ulrich Franke

doi:10.21037/jtd-23-1306

A propensity matched comparison of robotic vs. traditional minimal access approach for mitral valve repair with concomitant cryoablation

J Thorac Dis. 2023 Dec 30;15(12):6459-6474. doi: 10.21037/jtd-23-1306. Epub 2023 Dec 5.

Authors

Magdalena Rufa¹, Ragi Nagib¹, Dincer Aktuerk², Samir Ahad¹, Mihnea Ghinescu¹, Ulrich Franke¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
² Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS, London, UK.

Abstract

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs frequently in patients with mitral valve disease. Results of cryoablation concomitant with either minimally invasive video-assisted [minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS)] or with robotic-assisted (RMV) mitral valve surgery have previously been separately reported. However, there are up-to-date no studies comparing the two procedures in terms of safety, efficacy, and mid-term follow-up.

Methods: Between January 2017 and March 2022, 294 patients underwent MIMVS, and 187 patients underwent RMV at our institution. After 1:1 propensity score matching using 22 preoperative variables, the study included 104 patients. Group 1 (MIMVS) included 52 patients operated on between 2017-2022 using a minimally invasive video-assisted right-sided mini-thoracotomy. Group 2 (RMV) included 52 patients operated on between 2019-2021 using a robotic-assisted approach. Early and mid-term outcomes were assessed, including maintenance of sinus rhythm. Follow-up was 100% complete at a median follow-up of 2 years.

Results: For the entire propensity matched cohort, the median EuroSCORE II was 3.14 [interquartile range (IQR), 1.93-4.99], the median age was 68 (IQR, 61-74) years, and two thirds of the patients were male. Most (72.1%) underwent mitral valve surgery, and 26.9% had an additional tricuspid procedure. Only four patients underwent mitral valve replacement (3.8%). The majority (87.5%) received a left-sided atrial Maze and 12.5% a bi-atrial Maze. The left atrial appendage was occluded in 72.1% cases. Overall, there were no significant differences between the two propensity matched groups in baseline demographics or intra-operative characteristics. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the post-operative short and mid-term outcomes between the two groups. There were no in-hospital or 30-day deaths. At the mid-term survival was similar between groups, log-rank test P=0.056. Maintenance of sinus rhythm at follow-up was 76%.

Conclusions: Mitral or double valve repair with concomitant cryoablation can be safely performed with either a MIMVS or RMV approach. Both methods demonstrated outstanding early and mid-term outcomes.

Keywords: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS); atrial fibrillation (AF); concomitant surgical ablation; cryoablation; robotic-assisted mitral valve surgery (RMV).