A Population-Based Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Mitral Valve Repair

Journal The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Authors Paul, Subroto; Isaacs, Abby; Jalbert, Jessica; Osakwe, Nonso; Salemi, Arash; Girardi, Leonard; Sedrakyan, Art
Year Published 2015
Link to publication


BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted mitral valve repair is becoming more frequently performed in cardiac surgery. However, little is known about its utilization and safety at a national level.

METHODS: Patients undergoing mitral valve repair in the United States from 2008 to 2012 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample. Inhospital mortality, complications, length of stay, and cost for patients undergoing robotic-assisted mitral valve repair were compared with patients undergoing nonrobotic procedures.

RESULTS: We identified 50,408 isolated mitral valve repair surgeries, of which 3,145 were done with robotic assistance. In a propensity score matched analysis of 631 pairs of patients, we found no difference between patients undergoing robotic-assisted and nonrobotic-assisted mitral valve repair with respect to inhospital mortality, complications, or composite outcomes in unadjusted or multivariable analyses. Robotic-assisted mitral valve repair surgery was associated with a shorter median length of stay (4 versus 6 days, p < 0.001), and there was no difference in median total costs between the two procedures.

CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis of a large national database with its inherent limitations, robotic-assisted mitral valve repair was found to be safe, with an acceptable morbidity and mortality profile.

National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements

Journal The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Authors Isaacs, Abby; Shuhaiber, Jeffrey; Salemi, Arash; Isom, O. Wayne; Sedrakyan, Art
Year Published 2015
Link to publication


OBJECTIVE: Substantial controversy surrounds the choice between a mechanical versus bioprosthetic prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR), based on age. This study aims to investigate national trends and in-hospital outcomes of the 2 prosthesis choices.

METHODS: All patients aged >18 years in the National Inpatient Sample who received an AVR between 1998 and 2011 were considered. Valve-type use was examined by patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics, after which we matched patients based on their propensity score for receiving a bioprosthetic valve and compared their in-hospital outcomes.<

RESULTS: Bioprosthetic valves comprised 53.3% of 767,375 implanted valves, an increase in use from 37.7% in the period 1998 to 2001 to 63.6% in the period 2007 to 2011. The median age was 74 years for patients receiving bioprosthetic valves, and 67 years for those receiving mechanical valves. Use of bioprosthetic valves increased across all age groups, most markedly in patients age 55 to 64 years. Compared with patients receiving mechanical valves, these patients had a higher incidence of renal disease (8.0% vs 4.2%), coronary artery disease (58.5% vs 50.5%), concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (46.7% vs 41.9%), and having surgery in a high-volume (>250 cases per year) center (31.3% vs 18.5%). Patients receiving bioprosthetic valves had a higher occurrence of in-hospital complications (55.9% vs 48.6%), but lower in-hospital mortality (4.4% vs 4.9%) than patients receiving mechanical valves. This difference was confirmed in propensity-matched analyses (complications: 52.7% vs 51.5%; mortality: 4.3% vs 5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS: Use of bioprosthetic valves in AVR increased dramatically from 1998 to 2011, particularly in patients age 55 to 64 years. Prosthesis selection varied significantly by facility, with low-volume facilities favoring mechanicalĀ valves. Aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic valve, compared with a mechanical valve, was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.