Long-Term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Versus Sternotomy Surgical Resection of Primary Cardiac Tumors.

Abstract

Primary cardiac tumors are uncommon, often benign, but can be potentially life threatening. Minimally invasive endoscopic (ENDO) techniques have been shown to be a feasible alternative for tumor resection compared with conventional sternotomy (CS). This study compared the clinical and surgical outcomes of a small series of patients undergoing cardiac tumor resection operations. Between November 2009 and December 2022, 34 consecutive patients underwent cardiac tumor resection using either ENDO (n = 21) or CS (n = 13) techniques. We compared early perioperative outcomes, echocardiographic outcomes, and long-term clinical and tumor recurrence outcomes. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; however, the ENDO group included younger patients (56 ± 16 vs 62 ± 17 years) and more female patients (83% vs 53%). The tumor was located in the left atrium (n = 19, 56%), right atrium (n = 5, 15%), or either ventricle (n = 4, 12%). In-hospital mortality and stroke frequency were similar for both groups (n = 0). There was no significant difference in cardiopulmonary bypass or cross-clamp times, respiratory or renal failure, or intensive care unit or hospital lengths of stay. At follow-up (ENDO, 42 [2 to 131] months vs CS, 54 [1 to 156] months), there were no deaths in the ENDO group and 2 patients died in the CS group (P = 0.21). No patients in either group experienced tumor recurrence. In selected patients, both ENDO and CS approaches to primary cardiac tumor resection were safe, effective, durable, and associated with similarly good early and late results.