Comparative myocardial protection of endoaortic balloon versus external clamp in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.

Abstract

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery leads to shorter postoperative recovery time, cosmetic advantages and significant pain reduction compared with the standard sternotomy approach. Both an external aortic clamp and an endoaortic balloon occlusion can be used to manage the ascending aorta and the myocardial protection. In this study, we aimed to compare these two strategies in terms of effectiveness of myocardial protection and associated early postoperative outcomes. We investigated the retrospective records of prospectively collected data of patients treated by minimally invasive mitral valve surgery from March 2014 to June 2019. A total of 180 cases (78 in the external aortic clamp group and 102 in the endoaortic balloon clamp group) were collected. A propensity weighting analysis was adopted to adjust for baseline variables. The endoaortic balloon clamp presented higher EuroSCORE II (higher reoperative surgery rate). The intra- and postoperative data were similar between the two groups: the postoperative troponin-I levels, peak of serum lactates and rate of myocardial infarction were also comparable. The endoaortic clamp group recorded longer operative, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times. The external clamp group showed a higher rate of postoperative atrial fibrillation and conduction block. In experienced centers, the use of the endoaortic balloon clamp is safe, reproducible and comparable to the external aortic clamp regarding the effectiveness of myocardial protection: its employment might facilitate minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.