Minimally Invasive Surgery for Valvular Heart Disease

• Published in: Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine 2012-12, Vol.14 (6), p.584-593
• Main Authors: Cuadrado, Daniel G., Leacche, Marzia, Byrne, John G.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aortic stenosis; Calcification; Cardiology; Cardiovascular disease; Contraindications; Cost analysis; Embolization; Endocarditis; FDA approval; General anesthesia; Heart; Hematoma; Hypothermia; Intubation; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Minimally invasive surgery; Mortality; Ostomy; Prostheses; Section Editors; Surgery; Valvular Heart Disease (AS Desai and PT O’Gara
• ISSN: 1092-8464; 1534-3189
• DOI: 10.1007/s11936-012-0211-8

Opinion statement Valvular heart disease imposes varying degrees of stress on the myocardium, which, untreated, leads to eventual ventricular dysfunction. The pathophysiologic mechanisms by which these lesions act depend not only on the affected valve, but also the degree to which they causes stenosis, regurgitation, or both. The goal of patient treatment is to identify and correct the defect before irreversible ventricular changes have occurred. Historically, the conventional surgical approach for valvular disease was via median sternotomy. Minimally invasive valve surgery (MIVS) refers to alternative surgical techniques, which avoid the trans-sternal approach. The objective is to (1) minimize surgical trauma, (2) reduce blood utilization, and (3) hasten postoperative convalesce. These goals are accomplished through the use of partial sternal, para-sternal, or thoracotomy incisions and can be adapted to robotic technologies. As with all evolving surgical techniques, the therapeutic aim of valve repair or replacement must be performed at or above the same standard of conventional surgery. Outcomes must not be sacrificed for the sake of better cosmesis. In addition, percutaneous catheter-based valvular interventions have seen rapid advances. These emerging technologies have dramatically broadened the therapeutic options, especially for an ever-increasing group of high-risk patients. As expected with all minimally invasive techniques, the major differences in the hard outcomes of mortality and major morbidity are seen in these highest risk groups. However, intermediate and low risk patients receive a tremendous benefit with regard to shortened hospital stay and quicker functional recovery. With the myriad of interventional options now available, the clinical challenge now is how best to individualize the treatment approach to a given patient providing the most durable result in order to alleviate symptoms and preserve myocardial function.