We have located links that may give you full text access.
Robotic Mitral Valve Repair in Older Individuals: An Analysis of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database.
Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2018 November
BACKGROUND: National outcomes of robotic mitral valve repair (rMVr) compared with sternotomy (sMVr) in older patients are currently unknown.
METHODS: From 2011 to 2014, all patients aged 65 years and older undergoing MVr in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database linked to Medicare claims data were identified. Patients who underwent rMVr were propensity matched to patients who underwent sMVr. Standard differences and falsification outcome of baseline characteristics were tested to ensure a balanced match. Cox models were used to calculate 3-year mortality, heart failure readmission, and mitral valve reintervention, adjusting for competing risks where appropriate.
RESULTS: After matching, 503 rMVr patients from 65 centers and 503 sMVr from 251 centers were included. There were no significant differences in comorbidities or falsification outcome. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were longer with rMVr versus sMVr at 125 versus 102 minutes (p < 0.0001) and 85 versus 75 minutes (p < 0.0001), respectively. The rMVr patients had shorter intensive care unit (27 vs 47 hours, p < 0.0001) and hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, p < 0.0001), less frequent transfusion (21% vs 35%, p < 0.0001), and less atrial fibrillation (28% vs 40%, p < 0.0001). Three-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 2.16; p = 0.52), heart failure readmission (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 2.52, p = 0.10), and mitral valve reintervention (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 1.18; p = 0.22) did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The rMVr procedure was associated with less atrial fibrillation, less frequent transfusion requirement, and shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay, without a significant difference in 3-year mortality, heart failure readmission, or mitral valve reintervention. In older patients, rMVr confers short-term advantages without a detriment to midterm outcomes.
METHODS: From 2011 to 2014, all patients aged 65 years and older undergoing MVr in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database linked to Medicare claims data were identified. Patients who underwent rMVr were propensity matched to patients who underwent sMVr. Standard differences and falsification outcome of baseline characteristics were tested to ensure a balanced match. Cox models were used to calculate 3-year mortality, heart failure readmission, and mitral valve reintervention, adjusting for competing risks where appropriate.
RESULTS: After matching, 503 rMVr patients from 65 centers and 503 sMVr from 251 centers were included. There were no significant differences in comorbidities or falsification outcome. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were longer with rMVr versus sMVr at 125 versus 102 minutes (p < 0.0001) and 85 versus 75 minutes (p < 0.0001), respectively. The rMVr patients had shorter intensive care unit (27 vs 47 hours, p < 0.0001) and hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, p < 0.0001), less frequent transfusion (21% vs 35%, p < 0.0001), and less atrial fibrillation (28% vs 40%, p < 0.0001). Three-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 2.16; p = 0.52), heart failure readmission (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 2.52, p = 0.10), and mitral valve reintervention (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 1.18; p = 0.22) did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The rMVr procedure was associated with less atrial fibrillation, less frequent transfusion requirement, and shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay, without a significant difference in 3-year mortality, heart failure readmission, or mitral valve reintervention. In older patients, rMVr confers short-term advantages without a detriment to midterm outcomes.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app