A review and meta-analysis of conventional sternotomy versus minimally invasive mitral valve surgery for degenerative mitral valve disease focused on the last decade of evidence.

Abstract

Early meta-analyses comparing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) with conventional sternotomy (CS) have determined the safety of MIMVS. We performed this review and meta-analysis based on studies from 2014 onwards to examine the differences in outcomes between MIMVS and CS. Specifically, some outcomes of interest included renal failure, new onset atrial fibrillation, mortality, stroke, reoperation for bleeding, blood transfusion and pulmonary infection. A systematic search was performed in six databases for studies comparing MIMVS with CS. Although the initial search identified 821 papers in total, nine studies were suitable for the final analysis. All studies included compared CS with MIMVS. The Mantel - Haenszel statistical method was chosen due the use of inverse variance and random effects. A meta-analysis was performed on the data. MIMVS had significantly lower odds of renal failure (OR: 0.52; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.73, p < 0.001), new onset atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.78; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90, p < 0.001), reduced prolonged intubation (OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87, p = 0.01) and reduced mortality (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.87, p < 0.01). MIMVS had shorter ICU stay (WMD: -0.42; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.24, p < 0.001) and shorter time to discharge (WMD: -2.79; 95% CI -3.86 to -1.71, p < 0.001). In the modern era, MIMVS for degenerative disease is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared to the CS.