{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06782854451248234, 'fraction_numerical': 0.07442298634008479, 'mean_word_length': 4.418367346938775, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Abstract 14956: Improved Operative Efficiency for Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery at a Low-volume Center


 Introduction:
 When implementing a minimally invasive cardiac surgery program, increased surgical times may serve as a deterrent. Results demonstrating parity in operative times between minimally invasive (MIMVR) and conventional mitral valve replacement/repair (CMVR) have been limited to high-volume centers. The purpose of this study was to examine operative efficiency for MIMVR in a low-volume center.
 
 
 Methods:
 All patients having undergone non-emergent, isolated MIMVR or CMVR at the New Brunswick Heart Centre from 2011-2017 were considered. Detailed peri-operative data, including cross clamp (XC), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), skin-to-skin (SS) and total operative (TO) times, were collected. Patients were assigned to one of 3 eras: 2011-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2017. Unadjusted comparisons were made between MIMVR and CMVR over the entire study period and within each era.
 
 
 Results:
 A total of 168 patients were included (MIMVR: 64; CMVR: 104). There was an increase in the number of MIMVR cases over time (2011-2013: 19; 2014-2015: 17; 2016-2017: 28). Patients undergoing MIMVR were less likely to be ≥70years (29.7% vs. 47.1%, p=0.04) and to have had NYHA-IV symptoms (17.2% vs. 41.3%, p=0.002), previous cardiac surgery (4.7% vs. 23.1%, p=0.003) or urgent presentation (12.5% vs. 35.6%, p=0.002). Intra-operatively, MIMVR patients were more likely to have undergone a mitral valve repair (65.1% vs. 29.1%, p<0.0001). No differences were noted in rates of in-hospital mortality (0.0% vs. 5.1%, p=0.29). Median operative times were uniformly longer among MIMVR patients between 2011-2013. However, in 2014-2015 and 2016-2017, these times improved to the point where no significant differences in operative efficiency were noted (Figure).
 
 
 Conclusions:
 Improved operative efficiency may be safely achieved for MIMVR in a low-volume center. The results of this study should encourage low-volume centers to adopt a minimally invasive approach to isolated mitral valve surgery.
 
 
 
