1.重庆大学附属人民医院/重庆市人民医院麻醉科,重庆 400020
2.重庆大学附属人民医院/重庆市人民医院心血管外科/ 重庆市心血管外科学临床医学研究中心,重庆 400020
Received:26 November 2024,
Revised:2024-12-28,
Accepted:21 January 2025,
Published:28 June 2025
移动端阅览
唐黎,赵旭,陈灏,等.胸腔镜辅助二尖瓣手术近期临床结果单中心趋向性评分匹配研究[J].重庆医科大学学报,2025,50(6):828-833.
Tang Li,Zhao Xu,Chen Hao,et al.a single-center propensity score matching study[J].Journal of Chongqing Medical University,2025,50(6):828-833.
唐黎,赵旭,陈灏,等.胸腔镜辅助二尖瓣手术近期临床结果单中心趋向性评分匹配研究[J].重庆医科大学学报,2025,50(6):828-833. DOI: 10.13406/j.cnki.cyxb.003817.
Tang Li,Zhao Xu,Chen Hao,et al.a single-center propensity score matching study[J].Journal of Chongqing Medical University,2025,50(6):828-833. DOI: 10.13406/j.cnki.cyxb.003817.
目的
2
比较胸腔镜辅助微创二尖瓣手术(微创手术组)与传统正中开胸二尖瓣手术(传统手术组)的近期临床效果,包括手术相关指标、术后并发症、输血量及住院死亡率。
方法
2
回顾性分析重庆市人民医院2021年1月至2022年6月二尖瓣手术的141例患者数据,将患者分为微创手术组(42例)和传统手术组(99例)。通过倾向性评分1∶1匹配得到82例患者(每组41例),收集并对比了手术方式、体外循环时间、术后呼吸机使用时间、输血量,住院死亡率等数据。
结果
2
微创手术组和传统手术组术前患者性别、年龄、纽约心功能分级,合并糖尿病,高血压差异无统计学意义,2组手术方式的比较,微创手术组和传统手术组同期行房颤消融术[11(26.2) vs. 26(26.2),
P
=0.583
]
。同期行三尖瓣成形术[14(33.3) vs. 39(39.4),
P
=0.310
]
差异均无统计学意义。主动脉瓣阻断时间,微创手术组明显长于传统手术组[(122±48) min vs. (91±50) min,
P
=0.031
]
,体外循环时间微创手术组也明显长于传统手术组[(180±73) min vs. (136±72) min,
P
=0.033
]
。术后微创手术组和传统手术组术后呼吸机使用时间比较[18.6(12.0,36.2) h vs. 24.0(15.5,33.1) h,
P
=0.265
]
,差异无统计学意义。术后并发急性肾功能衰竭微创手术组和传统手术组比较[1级,3(7.1) vs. 7(7.1),2级,0(0) vs. 2(2),3级,1(2.4) vs. 9(9.1),
P
=0.398
]
,差异无统计学意义。术后使用人工血液透析比较[1(2.4) vs. 4(4),
P
=0.531
]
,差异无统计学意义。术后输血量,微创手术组明显低于传统手术组,差异有统计学意义[120(80,240) mL vs. 400(200,600) mL,
P
=0.002
]
。2组住院死亡率比较,差异无统计学意义[1(2.4) vs. 2(2),
P
=0.665
]
。倾向性评分匹配后,2组患者在一般特征(性别、年龄、合并症等)上差异无统计学意义。体外循环时间[(165±73) min vs. (122±74) min,
P
=0.053
]
和主动脉阻断时间[(119±48) min vs. (98±52) min,
P
=0.073
]
微创手术组比传统手术组较长,但差异无统计学意义;微创组术后输血量明显低于传统组[120(80,240) mL vs. 400(200,600) mL,
P<
0.001
]
。在住院30 d死亡率和术后并发症(急性肾功能衰竭、人工血液透析需求等)方面,2组差异无统计学意义。
结论
2
胸腔镜辅助二尖瓣微创手术与传统开胸手术在近期临床效果上具有相似的安全性。尽管微创手术的体外循环和主动脉阻断时间较长,但其术后输血需求较低,显示出良好的临床效果。
Objective
2
To compare the short-term clinical outcomes of thoracoscopy-assisted minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (minimally invasive cardiac surgery MICS group) versus conventional median sternotomy mitral valve surgery (conventional surgery group),including surgical metrics,postoperative complications,transfusion volume,and in-hospital mortality rate.
Methods
2
A retrospective analysis was performed for 141 patients who underwent mitral valve surgery in Chongqing General Hospital from January 2021 to June 2022,and these patients were divided into MICS group with 42 patients and conventional surgery group with 99 patients. Propensity score matching at a ratio of 1∶1 was performed to obtain 82 patients,with 41 patients in each group,and related data were collected and compared,including surgical procedure,cardiopulmonary bypass time,postoperative ventilation time,transfusion volume,and in-hospital mortality.
Results
2
There were no significant differences between the MICS group and the conventional surgery group in sex,age,cardiac functional grading,and comorbidity with diabetes or hypertension,and as for the surgical procedure,there was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of patients undergoing atrial fibrillation radiofrequency ablation(11/42 vs. 26/99,
P
=0.583) or tricuspid valvuloplasty(14/42 vs. 39/99,
P
=0.310). Compared with the conventional surgery group,the MICS group had significantly longer aortic cross-clamp time[(122±48) min vs. (91±50) min,
P
=0.031
]
and cardiopulmonary bypass time [(180±73) min vs. (136±72) min,
P
=0.033
]
,while there was no significant difference in postoperative ventilation time between the two groups after surgery [18.6(12.0,36.2) h vs. 24.0(15.5,33.1) h,
P
=0.265
]
. There was no significant difference in the number of patients with acute renal failure after surgery between the MICS group and the conventional surgery group [grade 1:3(42) vs. 7(99); grade 2: 0(42) vs. 2(99);grade 3: 1(42) vs. 9(99);
P
=0.398
]
. There was also no significant difference in the number of patients receiving hemodialysis after surgery between the two groups[1(42) vs. 4(99),
P
=0.531
]
. The MICS group had a significantly lower postoperative transfusion volume than the conventional surgery group[120(80,240) mL vs. 400(200,600) mL,
P
=0.002
]
,and there was no
significant difference in in-hospital mortality rate between the two groups[1(42) vs. 2(99),
P
=0.665
]
. After propensity score matching,there were no significant differences between the two groups in general characteristics(sex,age,and comorbidities). Compared with the conventional surgery group,the MICS group had longer cardiopulmonary bypass time[(165±73) min vs. (122±74) min,
P
=0.053
]
and aortic cross-clamp time[(119±48) min vs. (98±52) min,
P
=0.073
]
and a significantly lower postoperative transfusion volume [120(80,240) mL vs. 400(200,600) mL,
P
<
0.001
]
. There were no significant differences between the two groups in 30-day in-hospital mortality rate and postoperative complications(including acute renal failure and requirement for hemodialysis).
Conclusion
2
Thoracoscopy-assisted minimally invasive mitral valve surgery has comparable short-term clinical outcomes and safety to conventional sternotomy. Although MICS requires longer cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time,it has relatively low requirements for postoperative transfusion and shows favorable clinical outcomes.
Grossi EA , Goldman S , Alan Wolfe J , et al . Minithoracotomy for mitral valve repair improves inpatient and postdischarge economic savings [J ] . J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg , 2014 , 148 ( 6 ): 2818 - 2822 .
Holzhey DM , Seeburger J , Misfeld M , et al . Learning minimally invasive mitral valve surgery:a cumulative sum sequential probability analysis of 3895 operations from a single high-volume center [J ] . Circulation , 2013 , 128 ( 5 ): 483 - 491 .
Sündermann SH , Czerny M , Falk V . Open vs . minimally invasive mitral valve surgery:surgical technique,indic ations and results [J ] . Cardiovasc Eng Technol , 2015 , 6 ( 2 ): 160 - 166 .
Pope NH , Ailawadi G . Minimally invasive valve surgery [J ] . J Cardiovasc Transl Res , 2014 , 7 ( 4 ): 387 - 394 .
Mehta RL , Kellum JA , Shah SV , et al . Acute Kidney Injury Network:report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury [J ] . Crit Care , 2007 , 11 ( 2 ): R31 .
Gammie JS , Chikwe J , Badhwar V , et al . Isolated mitral valve surgery:the society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac surgery database analysis [J ] . Ann Thorac Surg , 2018 , 106 ( 3 ): 716 - 727 .
Beckmann A , Meyer R , Lewandowski J , et al . German heart surgery report 2018:the annual updated registry of the German society for thoracic and cardiovascular surgery [J ] . Thorac Cardiovasc Surg , 2019 , 67 ( 5 ): 331 - 344 .
Wilbring M , Charitos E , Silaschi M , et al . Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery [J ] . Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg , 2022 , 34 : 113 - 116 .
Nishi H , Miyata H , Motomura N , et al . Propensity-matched analysis of minimally invasive mitral valve repair using a nationwide surgical database [J ] . Surg Today , 2015 , 45 ( 9 ): 1144 - 1152 .
Randolph Chitwood W . The optimal aortic cross-clamp time in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery:still a conundrum? [J ] . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg , 2023 , 63 ( 6 ): ezad215 .
Doenst T , Berretta P , Bonaros N , et al . Aortic cross-clamp time correlates with mortality in the Mini-mitral International Registry [J ] . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg , 2023 , 63 ( 6 ): 147 - 153 .
Al-Sarraf N , Thalib L , Hughes A , et al . Cross-clamp time is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in low- and high-risk cardiac patients [J ] . Int J Surg , 2011 , 9 ( 1 ): 104 - 109 .
Lange R , Voss B , Kehl V , et al . Right minithoracotomy versus full sternotomy for mitral valve repair:a propensity matched comparison [J ] . Ann Thorac Surg , 2017 , 103 ( 2 ): 573 - 579 .
Pojar M , Karalko M , Dergel M , et al . Minimally invasive or sternotomy approach in mitral valve surgery:a propensity-matched comparison [J ] . J Cardiothorac Surg , 2021 , 16 ( 1 ): 228 .
Mori M , Parsons N , Krane M , et al . Robotic mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation [J ] . Ann Thorac Surg , 2024 , 117 ( 1 ): 96 - 104 .
Lange R , Voss B , Kehl V , et al . Right minithoracotomy versus full sternotomy for mitral valve repair:a propensity matched comparison [J ] . Ann Thorac Surg , 2017 , 103 ( 2 ): 573 - 579 .
Paparella D , Margari V , Santarpino G , et al . Comparison of a full sternotomy with a minimally invasive approach for concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve surgery [J ] . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg , 2022 , 62 ( 3 ): ezac167 .
Helmers MR , Kim ST , Altshuler P , et al . Mitral valve surgery in pulmonary hypertension patients:is minimally invasive surgery safe? [J ] . Ann Thorac Surg , 2021 , 111 ( 6 ): 2012 - 2019 .
Hage AL , Hage FD , Al-Amodi H , et al . Minimally invasive versus sternotomy for mitral surgery in the elderly:a systematic review and meta-analysis [J ] . Innovations (Phila) , 2021 , 16 ( 4 ): 310 - 316 .
Harky A , Joshi M , Gupta S , et al . Acute kidney injury associated with cardiac surgery:a comprehensive literature review [J ] . Braz J Cardiovasc Surg , 2020 , 35 ( 2 ): 211 - 224 .
Karkouti K , Wijeysundera DN , Yau TM , et al . Acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery:focus on modifiable risk factors [J ] . Circulation , 2009 , 119 ( 4 ): 495 - 502 .
Machado MN , Nakazone MA , Maia LN . Prognostic value of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery according to kidney disease:improving global outcomes definition and staging (KDIGO) criteria [J ] . PLoS One , 2014 , 9 ( 5 ): e98028 .
Karim HMR , Yunus M , Saikia MK , et al . Incidence and progression of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury and its relationship with bypass and cross clamp time [J ] . Ann Card Anaesth , 2017 , 20 ( 1 ): 22 - 27 .
Cocchieri R , Mousavi I , Verbeek EC , et al . Elderly patients benefit from minimally invasive mitral valve surgery:perioperative risk management matters [J ] . Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg , 2024 , 38 ( 1 ): ivad211 .
0
Views
7
下载量
0
CSCD
Publicity Resources
Related Articles
Related Author
Related Institution
京公网安备11010802024621
