These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Should minimally invasive aortic valve replacement be restricted to primary interventions?
    Author: Bakir I, Casselman FP, De Geest R, Wellens F, Degrieck I, Van Praet F, Vermeulen Y, Vanermen H.
    Journal: Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2007 Aug; 55(5):304-9. PubMed ID: 17629860.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in cardiac reoperations has not yet been defined. The purpose of this study is to report our experience with this technique. METHODS: Nineteen consecutive patients underwent aortic valve replacement via J-sternotomy as a reoperative cardiac procedure between 1999 and 2005. The mean age was 73.6 +/- 11.4 years. Previous cardiac operations included 12 (63.2 %) coronary artery bypass graftings, 6 (31.5 %) aortic valve replacements and 1 (5.2 %) mitral valve replacement. Mean follow-up was 23.6 +/- 19.7 months. The medical records were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: All procedures were successful. Mean aortic cross-clamping time and cardiopulmonary bypass time were 87.4 +/- 32.7 and 133.1 +/- 54.4 minutes, respectively. Cannulation sites were: ascending aorta (52.6 %), femoral artery (47.4 %), femoral vein (94.8 %) and right atrium (5.2 %). Myocardial protection was obtained by selective coronary osteal cold crystalloid cardioplegia and systemic cooling (mean 26.2 +/- 4 degrees C). Average intubation time was 1.5 +/- 1.4 days. Mean intensive care unit stay and postoperative hospital stay was 2.9 +/- 2.6 and 12.9 +/- 5.7 days, respectively. Median chest tube output was 550 ml. There were 4 revisions for bleeding. There were 2 late deaths and one non-incision related hospital death (5 %). This patient, who was already being treated for chronic dialysis, died on day 22 due to a cerebrovascular accident. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is feasible as a reoperative procedure. Its major advantage is avoidance of cardiac reexposure with potential damage to coronary grafts. We think this technique deserves more widespread application.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]