• Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg · Mar 2011

    Comparative Study

    Beating heart versus conventional mitral valve surgery.

    • Seyhan Babaroglu, Kerem Yay, Ali Ihsan Parlar, Can Ates, Ufuk Mungan, Ferit Cicekcioglu, Ufuk Tutun, and Salih Fehmi Katircioglu.
    • Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Turkiye Yuksek Ihtisas Hospital, Sihhiye, 06100 Ankara, Turkey.
    • Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011 Mar 1;12(3):441-7.

    ObjectivesThe present study aimed to compare the results of beating heart technique and conventional mitral valve surgery (MVS).MethodsThree hundred and nineteen patients who underwent MVS between April 2005 and December 2006 were enrolled in the study. While 125 patients underwent beating heart MVS (group 1), the conventional approach was used for 194 patients (group 2). Of those patients who underwent beating heart MVS, 75 underwent MVS without cross-clamping the aorta. Coronary sinus retroperfusion was used during surgery in the remaining 50 patients. The right anterolateral thoracotomy was performed in nine out of the 29 patients requiring re-operation, while resternotomy was performed in 20.ResultsNo significant differences were shown between the groups in the preoperative period in terms of the Parsonnet mortality score, Ontario mortality score, and length of intensive care stay. However, there were significant differences with respect to EuroSCORE risk score, EuroSCORE mortality, and Parsonnet risk score, and length of hospital stay according to Ontario risk scoring. It was established that the patients in group 1 had a shorter length of hospital stay [group 1: six days (range, 4-37 days); group 2: 10 days (range, 4-62 days)]. Group 1 was observed to have shorter time periods when the groups were compared regarding operative time [group 1: 130 min (range, 100-270 min); group 2: 240 min (range, 100-360 min)], cross-clamping (XCL) time [group 1: 27.5 min (range, 3-99 min); group 2: 60.5 min (range, 30-163 min)], and cardiopulmonary bypass time [group 1: 57 min (range, 22-150 min); group 2: 90 min (range, 39-388 min)]. There were also significant differences in favor of group 1 in terms of postoperative need for inotropic support [group 1: 26 patients (16%); group 2: 68 patients (35%)]. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the groups in terms of mortality rates according to the Parsonnet scoring system, with the exception of the moderate risk group, it was noted that the mortality rates in the beating heart group were lower.ConclusionsThis study concluded that beating heart MVS can be performed successfully, particularly for patients at higher risk which will lead to increased morbidity and mortality in postoperative period.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.