- A new study is the first randomized clinical trial to compare mitral valve repair via a conventional sternotomy.
- Researchers report that recovery from baseline to 6 weeks is better with mini-mitral surgery, although at 12 weeks, recovery of physical function is the same for both mini-mitral and sternotomy.
- A high mitral valve repair rate was seen with both surgical approaches and there were no differences in key safety outcomes.
- Researchers say the findings should give confidence to patients that mini-mitral surgery is as safe and efficacious as conventional sternotomy when performed by an experienced surgeon.
The mitral valve in the heart works like a door between two of the heart’s chambers (the left atrium and the left ventricle).
It ensures that blood flows from the left atrium (upper chamber) to the left ventricle (lower chamber).
Mitral valve regurgitation is a condition where the mitral valve doesn’t close properly, so some of the blood flows backward.
This makes the heart work harder to pump enough blood to the body. Symptoms include fatigue and shortness of breath.
In some cases, doctors may prescribe medication to treat mitral valve regurgitation.
Another option is mitral valve repair surgery. This can be done in different ways, including:
- Conventional surgery via a sternotomy – This involves opening the chest completely from the collarbone to the bottom of the breastbone. The healing process after the operation is lengthy.
- Minimally invasive mitral valve repair via a mini-thoracotomy, also known as “mini-mitral.” This involves making an incision about two inches long in the chest to gain access to the heart and then using a camera and special instruments to repair the valve. Recovery time is shorter, but the procedure is more complex.
There has been widespread debate in the cardiac surgery community about which one of the two approaches is best. Although patients prefer the minimally invasive mini-mitral approach, there have been concerns about its…
Read the full article here