Background and aim of the study: Mitral surgery in selected patients using femoral cannulation, percutaneous retrograde cardioplegia and endoballoon aortic occlusion with a 4-5 cm thoracotomy is felt to carry a higher operative risk than sternotomy with conventional cannulation. Herein, the authors compared their experience of the first 117 'Heartport' (HP) patients with a computer-matched group of sternotomy approach surgical patients (SP) to assess operative risk and 30-day outcome.
Methods: Data were extracted from the authors' STS certified, audited database on 117 patients based on an intention to treat. Between December 1997 and December 2004, a total of 92 isolated mitral valve (MV) repair (HP-MVRpr) and 25 isolated MV replacement (HP-MVR) procedures was conducted using Heartport. The patients were matched 1:1 (by age +/-7 years, cerebrovascular disease, inotrope use, and ejection fraction +/- 5%) to a control SP group. Operative and 30-day outcomes were measured.
Results: No parameter showed any significant difference in 30-day outcome between the HP and SP groups, except for an increase in cross-clamp and perfusion times. Two patients in the HP-MVRpr group required conversion to sternotomy for repair of coronary sinus perforation, and one patient was repaired without conversion. Surgery in one HP-MVRpr patient was aborted due to limited aortic dissection, but successful repair was carried out later with a conventional approach. No patient required conversion to sternotomy for improved exposure of the operative site.
Conclusion: Despite a longer cross-clamp time, 'classical' HP MV surgery can be performed with no increased risk compared to conventional MV surgery. Catheter and endoballoon complications were rare even in the early experience, and conversion to sternotomy was unusual and safely performed with this approach.