Right mini-thoracotomy approach reduces hospital stay and transfusion of mitral or tricuspid valve reoperation with non-inferior efficacy: evidence from propensity-matched study.

Abstract

There is limited evidence about the efficacy and cost difference between minimally invasive and conventional valve reoperation. This study intended to compare the short-term efficacy and cost between right mini-thoracotomy approach and median sternotomy approach in valve reoperation. From Feb 2011 to Sep 2017, 156 patients underwent valve reoperation including 68 cases of minimally invasive approach and 88 cases of traditional median sternotomy approach in our hospital. A propensity scoring was used to match patients with similar demographic characteristics. A total of 42 pairs of patients were left and divided into the conventional sternotomy group (CS group) and the right mini-thoracotomy group (RT group). A retrospective study of efficacy and cost was conducted between two groups. There was no statistical difference between two groups in demographical characteristics after propensity-scoring match (P>0.05). In-hospital mortality was 11.9% (5/42) for CS group and 7.1% (3/42) for the RT group (P=0.687). No significant disparity was found in the incidence of complications between two groups (P>0.05). CPB time (P=0.012), bypass time (P=0.006) and operation time (P=0.003) of CS group were significantly higher than RT group. Blood loss (P=0.014) and transfusion volume (P=0.003) of RT group was less than CS group. Shorter ICU and hospital stay was seen in RT group compared with CS group (P<0.001). Though the materials cost of RT group was higher than CS group (P<0.001), no significant disparity was found in total cost between CS group and RT group (P=0.790). The right mini-thoracotomy approach can achieve equivalent efficacy with conventional median approach, and doesn't necessarily increase the total cost. Moreover, the minimally invasive approach can decrease the operation time, hospital stay and blood product transfusion.