Medico-economic evaluation of minimally invasive thoracotomy versus sternotomy in heart valve surgeries: An observational study
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: Minimally invasive surgery has many outstanding advantages that make it increasingly popular for the treatment of heart valve disease. However, this approach has been criticised for its long operative aortic clamping times and increased treatment costs. The aim of this study was to compare the cost and clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery and conventional sternotomy in mitral and aortic surgery.
Methods: A prospective observational analysis of patients who had undergone mitral aortic valve surgery via minimally invasive approach or sternotomy between 1 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. The statistical analysis focused on differences in cost and advantages between the two surgical approaches. A correlation analysis was conducted to identify key contributors to the overall cost variation.
Results: A total of 44 patients met the study criteria. Patients were divided into two groups: minimally invasive surgery and traditional sternotomy. There was no significant difference between the two groups in preoperative status, most patients were in good health, without comorbidities such as kidney disease, thrombosis, hypertension, diabetes, chronic lung disease. The time spent in the operating room (from patient admission to exit), the surgery time, and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly higher for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement than for sternotomy aortic valve replacement (operating room time: 305 ±56 min vs. 249 ±53 min, p=0.029; operative time: 198 ± 54 min vs. 150 ± 54 min, p=0.046; CPB time: 129 ± 53 min vs. 80 ± 31 min; p=0.034). Mortality and complications during hospitalisation were similar between both groups for both mitral and aortic valve replacements. Total cost analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between the two methods (mitral valve replacement: 22 510 ± 6 672 euros vs 24 979 ± 10 196 euros, p=0.438; aortic valve replacement: 16 651 ± 2 855 euros vs 18 202 ± 6 261 euros, p=0.087).
Conclusion: In modern clinical practice, minimally invasive surgery is an effective strategy that provides good outcomes with comparable mortality, complications, duration of treatment, and hospital cost, compared with conventional approaches for mitral valve and aortic valve replacements.
Keywords
minimally invasive surgery, mitral valve replacement, aortic valve replacement, hospital cost
Article Details
References
2. Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS. Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:82-90.
3. Lawrence H. Cohn, David H. Adams, Gregory S. Couper, David P. Bichel et al. Minimally Invasive Cardiac Valve Surgery Improves Patient Satisfaction While Reducing Costs of Cardiac Valve Replacement and Repair. Ann surg. 1997; 226, 421-428 (4)
4. Carpentier A, Loulmet D, Carpentier A, Le Bret E, Haugades B, Dassier P, et al. [Open heart operation under videosurgery and minithoracotomy. First case (mitral valvuloplasty) operated with success]. C R Acad Sci III. 1996;319: 219-23. French.
5. Cosgrove DM III, Sabik JF. Minimally invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:596-7.
6. Grossi EA, Galloway AC, Ribakove GH, Zakow PK, Derivaux CC, Baumann FG, et al. Impact of minimally invasive valvular heart surgery: a case-control study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:807-10.
7. Grossi EA, Scott Goldman, J. Alan Wolfe , John Mehall et al. Minithoracotomy for mitral valve repair improves inpatient and postdischarge economic savings. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;148:2818-22
8. Mihal jevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, CouperG S, Byrne JG. One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results. Ann Surg. 2004;240: 529-34; discussion 34.
9. Gammie JS, Zhao Y, Peterson ED, O’Brien SM, Rankin JS, Griffith BP. J. Maxwell Chamberlain Memorial Paper for adult cardiac surgery. Less-invasive mitral valve operations: trends and outcomes from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:1401-8. 1410.e1; discussion 1408-10.
10. Phan K, Tsai YC, Niranjan N, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta- analysisAnn Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4: 100e111.
11. Cunningham MJ, Berberian CE, Starnes, VA. Is Transthoracic Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Too Time-Consuming for the Busy Cardiac Surgeon? Innovations (Phila) 2011;6(1):10-14
12. Pavan Atluri, Robert L. Stetson, George Hung, Ann C. Gaffey et al. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay when compared with
traditional sternotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:385-8
13. Emily A. Downs, Lily E. Johnston, Damien J. LaPar, Ravi K. Ghanta et al. Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery Provides Excellent Outcomes Without Increased Cost:
A Multi-Institutional Analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102(1):14-21.
14. Santana O, Larrauri-Reyes M, Zamora C, Mihos CG. Is a minimally invasive approach for mitral valve surgery more cost-effective than median sternotomy?. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016; 22(1):97–100.
15. Cosgrove DM, Sabik JF, Navia JL. Minimally invasive valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:1535-8.
16. Alexander Iribarne, Rachel Easterwood, Mark J. Russo et al. A minimally invasive approach is more cost-effective than a traditional sternotomy approach for mitral valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:1507-14)
17. Adama Sawadogo , Hoang Nam Nguyen, Nicolas D’Ostrevy et al. Inaugural experience and early results of minimally invasive approach in cardiac surgery in Auvergne region, France. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res, 2020, 12(2), 84-89
18. Marek Pojar, Mikita Karalko, Martin Dergel et al. Minimally invasive or sternotomy approach in mitral valve surgery: a propensity- matched comparison. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery (2021) 16:228
19. Cheng DC, Martin J, Lal A, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional open mitral valve surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Innovations (Phila) 2011;6:84–103.
20. Goldstone AB, Atluri P, Szeto WY, et al. Minimally invasive approach provides at least equivalent results for surgical correction of mitral regurgitation: a propensity-matched comparison. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;145:748–56.
21. Svensson LG, Atik FA, Cosgrove DM, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve surgery: a propensity-matched comparison. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;139; 926–32.e1–2.
22. Ravi K. Ghanta, Damien J. Lapar, John A. Kern et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: A real-world multi-institutional analysis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149(4):1060-5.
23. Attilio Cotroneo, Eugenio Novelli, Giuliana Barbieri et al. Use of an Aortic Valve Replacement Simulation Model to Understand Hospital Costs and Resource Utilization Associated With Rapid-deployment Valves. Clin Ther. 2020;42:2298e2310
Similar Articles
- Thi Thanh Hang Nguyen, Hoang Phuong Vu, Thi Thuc Phuong Vu, Evaluation of the prognostic role of plasma HS-TROPONIN T and NT-PROBNP levels in predicting major adverse events in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery , The Vietnam Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery: Vol. 52
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.