Mitral valve repair with minimally invasive approaches vs sternotomy: A meta-analysis of early and late results in randomized and matched observational studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) for mitral valve repair (MVRp) has been increasingly used. This study aimed to evaluate the early and late results of MICS for MVRp vs conventional sternotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review of randomized controlled trials or observational studies (with matched populations) comparing MICS and conventional MVRp reporting any of the following outcomes: mortality, MVRp failure, complications, blood transfusion, readmission within 30 days after discharge, long-term reoperation for mitral regurgitation, operative times, mechanical ventilation time, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, or hospital stay. The pooled treatment effects were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS Ten studies involving 6792 patients (MICS: 3396 patients; Conventional: 3296 patients) met the eligibility criteria. In the pooled analysis, MICS significantly reduced the risk for blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR], 0.654; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.462-0.928; P = .017) and readmission within 30 days after discharge (OR, 0.615; 95% 0.456-0.829; P = .001). MICS was associated with a significantly longer cross-clamp time (mean difference 14 minutes; 95% CI, 7.4-21 minutes; P < .001), CPB time (24 minutes; 95% CI, 14-35 minutes; P < .001), and total operative time (36; 95% CI, 15-56 minutes; P < .001), but a significantly shorter ICU stay (-8.5; 95% CI -15; -1.8; P = .013) and hospital stay (-1.3, 95% CI -2.1; -0.45; P = .003). This meta-analysis found no significant difference regarding the risk of in-hospital and long-term mortality, nor complications. CONCLUSIONS Despite longer operative times, MICS for MVRp reduces ICU and hospital stay, as well as readmission rates and the need for transfusion.