New Aortic Valve?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BLADEMDA

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
22,639
Reaction score
9,716
If you needed a new Aortic Valve for severe Stenosis which procedure would you undergo?

1) Standard Open chest Valve replacement

2) Robotic Aortic Valve

3) Minimally invasive valve replacement

4) New Percutaneous valve replacement (but wait 24 months)

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Patients treated with a catheter-delivered heart valve marketed by Medtronic Inc. (MDT) had improvement in valve function but saw higher rates of mortality and stroke at six months than at one month, according to results from a large, multicenter trial released Saturday.
Results from the trial, funded by Medtronic, are scheduled to be presented at [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]the [COLOR=blue !important]American [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]College[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] of Cardiology's annual conference in Chicago. The trial was conducted at 44 centers in Western Europe, Asia and South America. Each center had performed at least 40 catheter-delivered valve-implantation procedures.
A total of 996 frail, elderly patients at high risk for heart surgery were implanted with Medtronic's CoreValve device, used to treat severe narrowing of the aortic valve. Mortality rates at one month and six months were 4.5% and 12.8%, respectively. Stroke rates were 2.9% and 3.4%.Medtronic said the rates were consistent with previously reported data from national registries in Europe.
"Patients had great valve function after implantation with low stroke and mortality rates at three and six months," said Axel Linke, principal investigator and professor of [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]medicine[/COLOR][/COLOR] at Universitat Leipzig Herzzentrum in Germany. Dr. Linke is a consultant for Medtronic.
Many companies are getting into the market for catheter-delivered valves, which are considered to have multibillion dollar potential. Competitor Edwards Lifesciences (EW) has already launched such a valve in the U.S.
Medtronic has said it expects to gain U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for CoreValve in 2014. The valve is already available in 50 countries outside the U.S.


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/03/24/medtronic-valve-study-shows-higher-mortality-rate-at-6-months/#ixzz1q8ItrX79
 
First human robot assisted aortic valve replacement to implant the ATS 3f Aortic Bioprosthesis performed

Published on November 2, 2009 at 7:06 AM·1 Comment

ATS Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATSI), manufacturer and marketer of state-of-the-art cardiac surgery products and services, announced the first human robot assisted endoscopic aortic valve replacement using the daVinci® Surgical System from Intuitive Surgical (Nasdaq: ISRG) to implant the ATS 3f® Aortic Bioprosthesis. The procedure was performed by Allen Raczkowski, M.D., at Banner Baywood Health Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona.
The ATS 3f Aortic Bioprosthesis is the only valve that has the extreme flexibility necessary for small access robotic ports and it provides excellent hemodynamic characteristics which are important for the patient's quality of life," said Dr. Raczkowski.
With the recent introduction of the ATS 3f Aortic Bioprosthesis into the U.S. marketplace, surgeons have quickly recognized its unique potential for use in less invasive port access and robot assisted procedures. Because the ATS 3f valve is the first truly stentless valve in the world, it has no rigid supporting stent. As a result, the valve is completely pliable which allows it to be folded into a small diameter and introduced to the body through small ports using minimally invasive techniques. No other commercially available valve can be manipulated in this manner. This successful first ever minimally invasive human aortic valve replacement is the result of an ongoing cooperative effort with many of the leading robot experienced cardiac surgery centers in the U.S. to develop minimally invasive aortic valve procedures.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
WORLD'S FIRST ROBOTICALLY ASSISTED, MINIMALLY-INVASIVE AORTIC VALVE BYPASS PERFORMED BY UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SURGEONS

Robot helps make smaller incision possible in high risk patients





Cardiac surgeons at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore are the first in the world to use a surgical robot to help perform minimally invasive aortic valve bypass surgery. The robot gives surgeons a very precise tool to complete the complex bypass procedure.
James S. Gammie, M.D., a cardiac surgeon, associate professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and director of the University of Maryland Center for Heart Valve Disease, led the team that performed the aortic valve bypass.
The robot extends the surgeon's reach deep into the chest to access the aorta through a three-inch opening, smaller than would have been possible without the robot. During the procedure, surgeons place a tube that contains a replacement aortic valve between the tip of the heart and the body's main blood vessel (the aorta) in the back of the chest. When it is put in place, the tube relieves the blockage by bypassing the narrowed aortic valve. Surgeons do not need to stop the heart during the procedure, so a heart-lung machine is not necessary.
"Using the robot enables us to attach the bypass tube to the aorta with greater precision than we can by hand. This procedure is an excellent alternative for higher-risk patients with aortic stenosis," says Dr. Gammie.
An 83-year-old man from Bel Air, Md., aortic stenosis, a severe narrowing of the aortic valve that caused difficulty breathing. He had undergone previous heart surgery and faced several other medical problems that would have made conventional, open-heart aortic valve replacement very risky.
Within hours of having the minimally invasive, robotically assisted procedure, Mr. Warner was awake and talking to his family. He left the hospital a week later, with his breathing much improved.
Aortic stenosis is a common, life-threatening condition. More than 70,000 people in the United States undergo aortic valve procedures each year. One approach is to replace the defective valve. Another is to bypass it entirely. Some patients who have had aortic valve bypass continue to do well more than 25 years after their surgery. Dr. Gammie has performed over 60 valve bypasses since 2003. Using the surgical robot for part of the operation is a further innovation.
Dr. Gammie says one key advantage of a bypass over a valve replacement is the reduced risk of stroke. The defective valve is not touched or manipulated as it is in valve replacement, reducing the chance that dislodged particles will reach the brain and cause a stroke.
"As we are able to adapt the use of the surgical robot to more cardiac operations, we will be able to provide more patients with a minimally invasive procedure that requires a shorter recovery time," says Johannes Bonatti, M.D., director of coronary surgery and advanced coronary interventions at the University of Maryland Medical Center and a professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Bonatti is one of the world leaders in using the surgical robot to perform heart surgery. He was a pioneer in performing double and triple vessel coronary bypass operations with the robot, which means that the operations are performed in a minimally invasive way without a large incision.
"The addition of robotic assistance to aortic valve bypass builds on our philosophy of providing a more patient-friendly approach to heart surgery at the University of Maryland that results in better patient outcomes and comfort," says Bartley P. Griffith, M.D., chief of cardiac surgery at the University of Maryland Medical Center and professor of surgery at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
"Our cardiac surgeons continue to bring innovation to improving patient care," says E. Albert Reece, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., vice president for medical affairs at the University of Maryland and dean of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. "Adding robotic assistance to aortic valve bypass makes an already great alternative to valve replacement in high risk patients even better."
In addition to Dr. Bonatti, Eric J. Lehr, M.D., Ph.D., Murtaza Dawood, M.D., and anesthesiologist Ileana Gheorghiu, M.D., were part of the team with Dr. Gammie during this first robot-assisted aortic valve procedure. Dr. Lehr and Dr. Dawood are instructors at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. Dr. Gheorghiu is an assistant professor of anesthesiology at the School of Medicine.
Dr. Gammie is a co-founder of Correx, Inc., headquartered in Waltham, Ma., which has developed devices currently in the regulatory approval process that may expedite and simplify the most difficult aspects of aortic valve bypass procedures. These devices are unrelated to the use of the surgical robot.


Read more: http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/robotic_avb.htm#ixzz1q8M85WsK
 
Most of the intvl cardiologists I worked with on the PARTNER trial mention that CoreValve is far superior (during placement) than Edwards old valve (PARTNER being Edwards' valve), but docs have experience with both. I've seen a ton of these placements and the issue seems to be the valve migrating slightly - but enough to cause sometimes severe AI which in turn was a predictor of mortality - the moment the valve is deployed. CoreValve shape is quite different than Edwards's old valve. For the record, you don't need to wait 24 months for a CoreValve. One of my supervisors flies patients into Colombia and does them there. Quite a bit of them. And also, since PARTNER is over, I believe these cases are being done as needed now at the hospital here.

I'm not sure which I would get. Open seems the most complete fix (after all, the native valve leaflets remain in place when PERC valves are placed) but it must be hell having your chest cracked open. If I'm going to be tubed anyway, like they do in the PERC cases, I feel maybe I should just go the whole way with surgery, especially with Valve issues at this time. Who the heck knows.

What would YOU do BLADE?

D712
 
Last edited:
Depends on the surgeon/ cardiologists where I was getting it done and my age.

If I needed it done right now and I could fly anywhere I would still have a standard sternotomy. Less risk of chronic pain than "mini" thoracotomy for robot or minimally invasive. More predictable results, and I would have a tissue valve with the understanding that I would be committing myself to a re-op in 15 or so years but no coumadin. I suspect that by the time I need a redo, the trans catheter valves will have matured significantly and I would go that route.

If I was 60-70 it would be a tough call, but still would probably go with the sternotomy.

Older than 70 I would get a trans-catheter valve from someone who does a bunch of them.

Personally, I would skip anything associated with a thoracotomy. For me, the risk of long-term chronic pain is not worth the minimal/ questionable benefit. 20 years from now, I may be more of a believer.


- pod
 
Depends on the surgeon/ cardiologists where I was getting it done and my age.

If I needed it done right now and I could fly anywhere I would still have a standard sternotomy. Less risk of chronic pain than "mini" thoracotomy for robot or minimally invasive. More predictable results, and I would have a tissue valve with the understanding that I would be committing myself to a re-op in 15 or so years but no coumadin. I suspect that by the time I need a redo, the trans catheter valves will have matured significantly and I would go that route.

If I was 60-70 it would be a tough call, but still would probably go with the sternotomy.

Older than 70 I would get a trans-catheter valve from someone who does a bunch of them.

Personally, I would skip anything associated with a thoracotomy. For me, the risk of long-term chronic pain is not worth the minimal/ questionable benefit. 20 years from now, I may be more of a believer.


- pod

What about a Robotic/Davinci AVR? This is still brand new technology for AVRs but looks promising. Even with a small incision for the Davinci you think Chronic Pain is a big risk post op? I understand about Chronic Pain with the slightly lateral thoracotomy incision vs. a small sternotomy approach.

As of Today I agree the mini sternotomy approach seems the safest. I'd also be concerned about leaving my calcified, native valve in place. Some CT Surgeons think the calcified valve should be removed.

So far the published evidence for percutaneous valve replacement (strokes 6 months out) leaves me skeptical of this technology in 2012.
 
Last edited:
The daVinci has no place in the heart room in my biased opinion, at least not for pump cases. Let the gyns and urologists have the thing.

I agree with POD on the current state of affairs. Our patients who get the "minimally invasive" mini-thoracotomy routinely bitch about how much more it hurts than what they were expecting. Agree that most often it just isn't going to be worth it. That said, our guys are really good at these, to the point that we stopped putting in the EndoPlege catheters because they're fast enough they don't need the retro plege.

It is the opinion of our surgeons that in about 10 years, virtually all AVRs will be percutaneous. As such, they've started putting tissue valves in far younger populations, operating on the assumptions that 1) you're probably going to get closer to 20 years of longevity out of the current generation of bioprosthetics, not the 10 we commonly think of, and 2) by the time they need their redo, the percutaneous systems will be pretty much perfected.

We have the CoreValve at our shop, and I think it's a great concept and device.
 
The daVinci has no place in the heart room in my biased opinion, at least not for pump cases. Let the gyns and urologists have the thing.

I agree with POD on the current state of affairs. Our patients who get the "minimally invasive" mini-thoracotomy routinely bitch about how much more it hurts than what they were expecting. Agree that most often it just isn't going to be worth it. That said, our guys are really good at these, to the point that we stopped putting in the EndoPlege catheters because they're fast enough they don't need the retro plege.

It is the opinion of our surgeons that in about 10 years, virtually all AVRs will be percutaneous. As such, they've started putting tissue valves in far younger populations, operating on the assumptions that 1) you're probably going to get closer to 20 years of longevity out of the current generation of bioprosthetics, not the 10 we commonly think of, and 2) by the time they need their redo, the percutaneous systems will be pretty much perfected.

We have the CoreValve at our shop, and I think it's a great concept and device.


Mortality rates at one month and six months were 4.5% and 12.8%, respectively. This is with the Medtronic Core Valve. Would Mortality be lower if the patients were younger and healthier 6 months out? I agree this is the future of Valve replacement.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/03/24/medtronic-valve-study-shows-higher-mortality-rate-at-6-months/#ixzz1q957SC8L
 
Most of the intvl cardiologists I worked with on the PARTNER trial mention that CoreValve is far superior (during placement) than Edwards old valve (PARTNER being Edwards' valve), but docs have experience with both. I've seen a ton of these placements and the issue seems to be the valve migrating slightly - but enough to cause sometimes severe AI which in turn was a predictor of mortality - the moment the valve is deployed. CoreValve shape is quite different than Edwards's old valve. For the record, you don't need to wait 24 months for a CoreValve. One of my supervisors flies patients into Colombia and does them there. Quite a bit of them. And also, since PARTNER is over, I believe these cases are being done as needed now at the hospital here.

I'm not sure which I would get. Open seems the most complete fix (after all, the native valve leaflets remain in place when PERC valves are placed) but it must be hell having your chest cracked open. If I'm going to be tubed anyway, like they do in the PERC cases, I feel maybe I should just go the whole way with surgery, especially with Valve issues at this time. Who the heck knows.

What would YOU do BLADE?

D712

If I was a decent operative candidate then a mini sternotomy with a bioprosthetic valve; If I was elderly, poor health, frail, etc. then a percutaneous CoreValve in Columbia.

The incidence of chronic pain after a sternotomy is very low while any type of thoracotomy can cause sign. post op pain for years.

Anyone else have an opinion on current state of the art technology for valves? Does anyone use the Davinci for Mitral Valve repairs?

If I needed a Mitral Valve repair what would you recommend for the approach?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Admittedly, I haven't looked at the data for close to a year now, but the last time I looked, the data on perc AVR is only marginally useful in making a decision on whether I would have one as a low-risk surgical candidate. We were one of the trial sites for the Edwards Valve and predicted surgical mortality for these patients was off the charts. You had to be turned down for a surgical approach before you would be considered for randomization.

I am a believer in the technology and, as it is applied to younger and healthier patients, I believe that the stroke and mortality numbers will be better than they are for the operative approach.

One of the reasons I am a believer in the technology is that I am astonished by the mortality rates such as 4.5% and 12.8% at 1 and 6 months. For the people we were putting the Edwards Valve in, I would have thought the risk should be at least double that or more.

Great results IMHO.

I should probably reserve judgement on robotics for now. I was not a believer for Gyn/ Uro cases, but have begun to change my mind. For the average surgeon, it is a significant improvement. For a truly top notch laparoscopic surgeon, I am still not convinced. I can see the same being said for robotic hearts, although I don't have enough personal experience to be certain. The pain issue is still there although reduced from the minimally invasive approach.

All in all an exciting time in cardiac surgery, if you can be flexible enough to go with the new technologies.

- pod
 
Re: robotic mitrals- it is a miserable, miserable surgery. Reason being you get inhumane pump runs and often suboptimal results. Just open the f'ing sternum up (or do a mini-thoracotomy, whatever) and visualize and repair the frigging valve directly. I can't tell you how many times as a resident we had pump runs of 4+ hours (not including all the docking time and the associated nonsense) which took the MR from severe to severe. It's a crap procedure, in my formed-at-a-single-center opinion. They stopped doing them at my present place for these reasons, and focused their energy on the mini-thoracotomy approach which is a bazillion times better IMO, having seen both techniques.

Learning curves are fine and all, but exposing a big number of patients to unnecessarily ridiculous pump runs for such a marginal purported advantage ("slightly less traumatic, yipee!") is no bueno IMO.

Re: stroke and TAVI- already there is data from the PARTNER A CAP data (on the Sapien valve) that suggests stroke rates and mortality come down with procedural experience. http://www.theheart.org/article/1348117.do . This data concerns the transapical approach but I don't see why it shouldn't also hold true for the percutaneous approaches. Blade's reference concerned the CoreValve, and I bet the follow-up data looks better and better.

Finally, I wonder if any of the transcatheter mitral repair techniques will ever be ready for prime time. I.E. percutaneous Alfieri clips and "cinching" annuloplasties via the coronary sinus. Sounds shady to me but I'm ready to be surprised if the technology works out and achieves a durable result.
 
The TECAB, total endoscopic CAB or robotic CAB, is a pretty decent operation if the anatomy is favorable. I work with the surgeon who has likely done the most of these in the world (75-100 a year). When they go well, they go really well. When they go poorly, they go really poorly. The off pump TECAB is really nice though. The key is to limit the number of grafts. I think greater than 2 grafts (LIMA + RIMA + SVG) is pushing what can be done with the robot.
The TAVIs, or perc valves, are really nice for high risk patients. They definitely do have more complications than open AVR or mini AVR but it's worth it considering the natural history of AS. As we start doing them in younger, healthier patients, the risk-benefit see-saw isn't going to be so clear cut. One of my surgeons on Friday said that the cardiologists are already expanding what they consider "inoperable".
I've never done a robotic AVR or mitral. Minithoracotomy would be my preference. Chronic pain aside it's really a nice approach, but then I trained with a surgeon who did 300 of these a year. Key is volume, volume, volume.
I'd stay away from the apical-aortic conduits (or aortic valve bypasses). Misery in my experience but Gammie does have good results.
 
Re: robotic mitrals- it is a miserable, miserable surgery. Reason being you get inhumane pump runs and often suboptimal results. Just open the f'ing sternum up (or do a mini-thoracotomy, whatever) and visualize and repair the frigging valve directly. I can't tell you how many times as a resident we had pump runs of 4+ hours (not including all the docking time and the associated nonsense) which took the MR from severe to severe. It's a crap procedure, in my formed-at-a-single-center opinion. They stopped doing them at my present place for these reasons, and focused their energy on the mini-thoracotomy approach which is a bazillion times better IMO, having seen both techniques.

Learning curves are fine and all, but exposing a big number of patients to unnecessarily ridiculous pump runs for such a marginal purported advantage ("slightly less traumatic, yipee!") is no bueno IMO.

Re: stroke and TAVI- already there is data from the PARTNER A CAP data (on the Sapien valve) that suggests stroke rates and mortality come down with procedural experience. http://www.theheart.org/article/1348117.do . This data concerns the transapical approach but I don't see why it shouldn't also hold true for the percutaneous approaches. Blade's reference concerned the CoreValve, and I bet the follow-up data looks better and better.


Finally, I wonder if any of the transcatheter mitral repair techniques will ever be ready for prime time. I.E. percutaneous Alfieri clips and "cinching" annuloplasties via the coronary sinus. Sounds shady to me but I'm ready to be surprised if the technology works out and achieves a durable result.

Not sure where you are doing your robotic mvr's, but our pump runs are typically 30-45 minutes with equal results to open median sternotomy. These patients typically receive no blood products and are extubated at the end of the procedure and usually don't remain in the ICU overnight.
 
If you needed a new Aortic Valve for severe Stenosis which procedure would you undergo?

1) Standard Open chest Valve replacement

2) Robotic Aortic Valve

3) Minimally invasive valve replacement

4) New Percutaneous valve replacement (but wait 24 months)

What about the Ross procedure? I looked into this when I thought that I was going to need a new aortic valve (turned out that my 1-in-a-million valvular deformity is not progressing at all, and may never need surgery). I know that one minus is a long time on pump.
 
Not sure where you are doing your robotic mvr's, but our pump runs are typically 30-45 minutes with equal results to open median sternotomy. These patients typically receive no blood products and are extubated at the end of the procedure and usually don't remain in the ICU overnight.

Great. I'm going to the Mayo if I need a Mitral Valve repair.🙂

Proman, what about Duke? Anything exciting going on there in terms of adanced techniques?
 
The Ross Procedure
The Ross Procedure is a type of specialized aortic valve surgery where the patient's diseased aortic valve is replaced with his or her own pulmonary valve. The pulmonary valve is then replaced with cryopreserved cadaveric pulmonary valve. In children and young adults, or older particularly active patients, this procedure offers several advantages over traditional aortic valve replacement with manufactured prostheses.
ross-a.gif
Fig. A: The pulmonary valve and a segment of the pulmonary artery are excised. This pulmonary segment will later be placed in the aortic position replacing the diseased aortic valve.
ross-b.gif
Fig. B: The diseased aortic valve and proximal tissue is removed, leaving the right and left coronary arteries with only a button of tissue.
ross-c.gif
Fig. C: The pulmonary autograft is placed in the aortic position and the buttons of tissue on both the right and left coronary arteries are then sewn into that pulmonary segment and closed. A cadaveric pulmonary valve and artery homograft is then replaced in the pulmonary position to replace the excised pulmonary segment.
Longevity of the pulmonary autograft in the aortic position is superior to bioprostheses such as porcine valves, which tend to degenerate after only a few years in patients under 35 years of age. Furthermore, anticoagulation is not required as with mechanical valves. Thus, individuals can lead an active life without the risks associated with anticoagulation therapy. This is especially important for women of child bearing age needing aortic valve replacement, as anticoagulation is contraindicated in pregnancy.
 
I guess for younger patients (under age 50) the Ross procedure looks interesting. I've never seen one so can't comment.

Over age 50 I'd want a bioprosthetic valve and mini sternotomy. Over age 80 and I hope IPAB lets me get that percutaneous medtronic aortic vale,
 
Overall, I learned that the long-term statistics of the Ross Procedure were encouraging - although the surgical outcome for the Ross Procedure can be confusing depending on who is reporting the results.

Without going into all the data I located, there are some well documented Ross Procedure statistics:
  • Overall, 85% to 90% freedom from reoperation at 10 years.
  • Approximately 75% to 80% freedom from reoperation at 20 years.
In fact, data from Donald Ross, the inventor of the Ross Procedure who first performed the surgery in 1967, showed freedom from re-operation at 75% twenty-five years after surgery. Bear in mind that much of this data was developed before homograft-wrapping techniques were implemented.
Dr. John Oswalt from Austin, Texas reports that his Ross Procedure patients are 92% free from reoperation seventeen years after surgery. Dr. Paul Stelzer from New York has reported similar success after four hundred and twenty Ross Procedure surgeries.
Dr. Ed Raines, in Lincoln, Nebraska has had to redo 3% of Ross Procedure surgeries during the past ten years due to dilation of the root (prior to wrapping). Plus, Dr. Raines has not had a homograft fail yet.
Recently, I met with Dr. Paul Stelzer, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. Dr. Stelzer has performed over 475 Ross Procedures since 1987. Stelzer's clinical results suggest that less than 10% of patients require re-operation up to 10 years after surgery.
adam-pick-heart-book-rounded.jpg
My Patient Experience With The Ross Procedure?
I had my Ross Procedure performed on December 21, 2005 by Dr. Vaughn Starnes at the USC Medical Center in Los Angeles. So far, the Ross Procedure has worked out very well for me. Although the recovery from open heart surgery was not easy, the result from my Ross Procedure has been excellent.
 
Great. I'm going to the Mayo if I need a Mitral Valve repair.🙂

Proman, what about Duke? Anything exciting going on there in terms of adanced techniques?

The surgeon at Duke is a very high volume guy who takes great care of his patients (we joked that he's his own intern). His bypass times and OR times are longer than most, but supposedly he has the best outcomes in the country (according to STS data). He does mini-thoractomy MVRs and AVRs and is meticulous. If my Mom needed an MVR I'd send her to him. There are plenty of other guys across the country who are very skilled at mini-MVRs. I'd ask for volume, how often they have to convert to open, how often a replacement is done vs repair, and reoperation rate. Getting it done by median sternotomy isn't a bad thing either, and I'd ask the same questions.
 
The surgeon at Duke is a very high volume guy who takes great care of his patients (we joked that he's his own intern). His bypass times and OR times are longer than most, but supposedly he has the best outcomes in the country (according to STS data). He does mini-thoractomy MVRs and AVRs and is meticulous. If my Mom needed an MVR I'd send her to him. There are plenty of other guys across the country who are very skilled at mini-MVRs. I'd ask for volume, how often they have to convert to open, how often a replacement is done vs repair, and reoperation rate. Getting it done by median sternotomy isn't a bad thing either, and I'd ask the same questions.


I agree. I'd want 200 valve repairs or replacements per year from my surgeon. Volume.
 
Not sure where you are doing your robotic mvr's, but our pump runs are typically 30-45 minutes with equal results to open median sternotomy. These patients typically receive no blood products and are extubated at the end of the procedure and usually don't remain in the ICU overnight.

Well OK then, sure, sounds like a great procedure at your facility. I'd be willing to wager a fair amount that Joe Cardiac Surgeon at Averagepractice, USA can't do a robotic mitral with a pump time of 30 minutes, but the average is probably better than 4 hours too.

My point is that in average hands it probably lengthens pump runs which is a substantial cost for a marginal benefit. In my amateur opinion.

The point of the Ross is to get a durable result without the need for anticoagulation in the younger population, which I think will become mostly obsolete if bioprosthetics will be routinely replaced by percutaneous valves in the future. It's a good procedure and we do a handful of them a year, but why screw around with reimplanting the coronaries if the TAVI redo is a good option?
 
I would go with the tried and true median sternotomy and bioprosthetic for an AVR if I needed one. Less pain, no anticoagulation and a re-op in 15-20 years isn't the end of the world.

I don't have any firsthand experience in robotic cardiac surgery, but have some secondhand input and it hasn't been good. As a resident I took care of a couple of pt's who were <1 year out from a robotic MVR at a very reputable cardiac center. Both now had class III-IV heart failure symptoms from valve failure. One lady was very young (child bearing age). I got a copy of her op-note from her robotic MVR. They went back on pump 3 times before they emergently opened her chest. Put in too small of a valve and now she has severe MS. SOB walking across the house. As we were heading to the OR she pulls her gown down a little and says to me "Can you make sure he remembers to correct this as well" as she shows me her scar that looks like a 4 year old made the incision. It is encounters like this that make me trust the good old sternotomy even more.
 
Top